Jump to content

The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours


Recommended Posts


I'm guessing you didn't go to the meeting as it was explained then.

They won't make more money in the above scenario. The above scenario can happen now, it didn't need the cic to make it happen.

The club will make more money AS A RESULT of the cic being in place. The example used was the church using the facilities for their meetings. Births, weddings and deaths are all associated with churches. People also have parties for such occasions. Why not have the party where the church group meets every week? The club won't make much off the actual hiring of the hospitality suite, its from the bar sales at these events that the club will make money. The more of these events that are held, the more potential of the guests seeing the facilities and spreading the word that st. Mirren is a good place for these events to happen. No additional commercial staff are required, its all free publicity. Through various streams it was stated at the meeting that club could make up to 20% more purely by being involved with the cic and these are conservative figures.

All these streams are out their now and the club currently has as much access to them as the CIC does. The CIC does not guarantee an extra penny for the club, it will also divert a portion of what it makes to other causes. You and i wont have the authority to prevent that or to even act to keep a reasonable balance, the executive board will retain that right and will do as they see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me how SMFC will make MORE money in the above scenario? Will the CIC magically uncover additional streams of business that a full-time, experienced and seemingly very able commercial director & staff cannot find purely by dint of their status?

Presumably whatever percentage they decide to give to St Mirren. While it's not ideal I think the point is if we get 50% of the profits from 100 weddings/funerals/parties it's more than 100% of 10. I don't know exactly what the figures are for percentages, or how many events we currently have and we plan to have, but I think the point is having a decent cut of a lot of money is better than having all of a small amount.

I think the additional steams of business aren't so much that the current board can't think of them, it's they can't afford to implement them without either putting themselves or the club into massive debt (i.e., the bar (which I assume is a necessity for most events) costs over £100,000 and the current board can't afford that, while under the CIC we can get it for much less by working with Kibble, and get the rest paid initially by a grant which wouldn't normally be available to us.

We still dont know how big the debt will be, grants for anything rarely amount to more than 20% of outlay, so it's not unreasonable to think that the debt could be 1.6 million. how long do you think it will take a CIC with the proposed membership to pay that off, even if they all stay the distance, which they wont?

Yes we do. They've already said publicly that the maximum amount of debt is 1,200,000 so we're getting at least 40% as grants. From what I've read this is a conservative number, so it's possible we could be getting more grants. The loans take between 3 and 10 years to repay with interest rates varying from 0 to 8%.

Edited by David_Morrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't need to be a public meeting, though delivering it online does need a certain level of maturity about the members. Every little thing is overkill, but there could be enough to keep things interesting...I'd assume there would be as we look to develop the entire club and the CIC in order to drive things forward.

It does have to be said that Stu has completely missed the whole point of the executive board.It does have to be said that Stu has completely missed the whole point of the executive board.

Perhaps you could explain it to me seeing as I'm obviously been a thick gingy moron. Again :)

From reading previous articles, it seems I was wrong on big issues being voted on by CIC members - fair enough, but I don't really think that is giving folk their say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's almost certain to fail because it relies on the ability of people with access to limited funds to continue to find extra cash year after year in the face of conflicting demands from the mortgage, power company and feeding the kids, or in the case of business members paying their employees and creditors.

People will commit and then disappear like snow off a dyke when conflicting demnds arise.

We still dont know how big the debt will be, grants for anything rarely amount to more than 20% of outlay, so it's not unreasonable to think that the debt could be 1.6 million. how long do you think it will take a CIC with the proposed membership to pay that off, even if they all stay the distance, which they wont?

How would you like it if your boss said he couldnt pay you a rise this year but found he had invested 10K in 10000 hours for no real return? i know that will be shot down by some of the dafties on here who always try to brandish their supposed business credentials, but ignore them, most business people i know have an element of honesty and decency about them as well as genuine business sense. Most will want to give any cash they can spare direct to good causes such as kid's clubs and sporting initiatives direct as opposed to handing it over to mixed bag of soccer fans and unknown quantities to distribute as they see fit.

..again if u went to the meeting you WOULD know what the debts will be.

800k in grants.

1.2m in loans, of various lengths, which will take between 3and 10 years to pay back completely, assuming the membership remains at the conservatively low number that they ate looking for presently. It could quite easily supersede thus amount meaning the debt could be paid back quicker. The types of loans also mean they can be reduced via the social return they give (via kibble etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All these streams are out their now and the club currently has as much access to them as the CIC does. The CIC does not guarantee an extra penny for the club, it will also divert a portion of what it makes to other causes. You and i wont have the authority to prevent that or to even act to keep a reasonable balance, the executive board will retain that right and will do as they see fit.

I didn't realise the church was having their meetings at greenhill road already?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Saints fan of over 40 years now I’ve been following the discussions on this possible way forward with great interest. The CIC model in itself seems very laudable and worthy, however the more I read and hear about this particular proposal for St Mirren the more concerned I become.

There are a numbers of areas of concerns for me, and I apologise in advance if some of these have been covered elsewhere, but I haven’t memorised the multitude of posts on the subject.

It is the case that the club is largely debt free, it then seems odd that we should enter into an arrangement that could see the club associated with a debt of up to £1.2m. Irrespective of the debt being held by the 10000 hours CIC I can’t see how this can be anything other than a drain on the club.

The Information Document says that “The funding to repay any debt will come from two main areas. Firstly, the enhanced trading of the assets of St Mirren FC”. I can only interpret this as meaning that any potential new income for St Mirren could be siphoned off by the CIC to pay debts rather than going into the development of the club or the playing squad. Indeed the fundraising ventures being entered into result in no apparent benefit to the club that I can see. The money raised being used to buy shares and pay off debt. If I was dipping into my pocket I would want the money to go straight into the club. This makes no sense to me.

The Information Document also mentions increased utilisation of the clubs facilities. But there is no mention of the investment required to facilitate this. How much investment is required to make full use of the clubs facilities? What is the projected annual income? How much will go into the playing budget? The only concrete proposal I’ve seen is for a bar. What is the projected income from the bar? How much if any of the profits from this will come back into the club? I’m not seeing much in the way of tangible benefits to St Mirren from any of this.

Much has been made of the advantages of the CIC model in terms of community and fan involvement and it is absolutely correct that a CIC does offer that type of involvement. However St Mirren is not becoming a CIC. What we have instead is this rather complicated structure of a CIC with a controlling interest and 2 boards, along with board of St Mirren FC. This doesn’t seem to bode well for streamlined decision making. Neither does it bode well for community and fan involvement as the real decisions will be taken by an executive board which is apparently already appointed. It’s also puzzling that there was no mention of this board until the public meeting. The proposals are full of laudable aspirations but there does seem to be a lack of real detail.

One of the other stated benefits of the proposal is the asset lock which is an integral part of any CIC. However how does this apply to St Mirren as the club itself has the assets and is not becoming a CIC? The 10000 hours CIC as far as I can see will have no assets so how is the asset lock a benefit. Perhaps someone can explain how the asset lock of a company which has no assets benefits a private company (St Mirren) which has the assets. One of the key benefits to the club as argued by the proponents of this doesn’t seem to stack up.

It seems that the a major driver for all of this is the desire for a group of directors to get a pay off and that may be fair enough as I’m sure they feel they’ve done their bit and deserve it. But the club is more important than the financial interests of any group of individual and we shouldn’t be embarking on any risky ventures. Another driver seems to be the desire for Richard Atkinson to get control of the club via this model. Why then isn’t he putting in any investment of his own into the club, even a modest one? He may be a nice guy, and I don’t doubt that he is well intentioned, but what exactly is his track record in business. If we are effectively letting this guy run the club what prior experience does he have that would make him a suitable candidate to run a football club like St Mirren.

If the CIC model is the way to go then why hasn’t RA simply got the finance together to buy the controlling interest in the club and then transform it into a CIC? This would seem to me a much more sensible and straightforward way to go than setting up a CIC as a separate entity, which then takes on debt, which has to be paid off. There may be a simple answer to this. I can’t see one.

St Mirren at the moment is basically financially sound and largely debt free. Things are not perfect at the club but we seem to be fairly stable at the moment. The more I look at the CIC proposal the more I become convinced that it is potentially a dangerous leap in the dark and a route we should not be taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Saints fan of over 40 years now I’ve been following the discussions on this possible way forward with great interest. The CIC model in itself seems very laudable and worthy, however the more I read and hear about this particular proposal for St Mirren the more concerned I become.

There are a numbers of areas of concerns for me, and I apologise in advance if some of these have been covered elsewhere, but I haven’t memorised the multitude of posts on the subject.

It is the case that the club is largely debt free, it then seems odd that we should enter into an arrangement that could see the club associated with a debt of up to £1.2m. Irrespective of the debt being held by the 10000 hours CIC I can’t see how this can be anything other than a drain on the club.

I think the real issue in that front is with the people setting the CIC up. The debt will be in their hands, they will be the ones picking up the pieces in the very unlikely event that the appropriate numbers can't be found. Remember this is already, in a small way, being targeted at football fans across the globe.

The Information Document says that “The funding to repay any debt will come from two main areas. Firstly, the enhanced trading of the assets of St Mirren FC”. I can only interpret this as meaning that any potential new income for St Mirren could be siphoned off by the CIC to pay debts rather than going into the development of the club or the playing squad. Indeed the fundraising ventures being entered into result in no apparent benefit to the club that I can see. The money raised being used to buy shares and pay off debt. If I was dipping into my pocket I would want the money to go straight into the club. This makes no sense to me.

No matter the buyer, £2 million will always be going away from the club and there's no way to get past that. It's an annoyance with every takeover, but also necessary. Money could be siphoned off, but that will be controlled by the voting and I don't see any payments being slid under the door so to speak. Hopefully the community iniatives will lead to social return and the debt will drop as a result.

The Information Document also mentions increased utilisation of the clubs facilities. But there is no mention of the investment required to facilitate this. How much investment is required to make full use of the clubs facilities? What is the projected annual income? How much will go into the playing budget? The only concrete proposal I’ve seen is for a bar. What is the projected income from the bar? How much if any of the profits from this will come back into the club? I’m not seeing much in the way of tangible benefits to St Mirren from any of this.

I admit this is a tricky one, though in all honesty fans have been calling for this and where did they think the money would come from.

Much has been made of the advantages of the CIC model in terms of community and fan involvement and it is absolutely correct that a CIC does offer that type of involvement. However St Mirren is not becoming a CIC. What we have instead is this rather complicated structure of a CIC with a controlling interest and 2 boards, along with board of St Mirren FC. This doesn’t seem to bode well for streamlined decision making. Neither does it bode well for community and fan involvement as the real decisions will be taken by an executive board which is apparently already appointed. It’s also puzzling that there was no mention of this board until the public meeting. The proposals are full of laudable aspirations but there does seem to be a lack of real detail.

The real decisions may need ratified at executive level, huge difference to needing made at executive level...again, this has been explained numerous times. I don't find it puzzling at all, I'm more of the feeling I can't believe people thought a Ltd company wouldn't have a board. The aspitations are as in the air as the ability and engagement of the fans will allow. I'm perfectly happy that not everything is a promise as that's totally the wrong route to go along.

One of the other stated benefits of the proposal is the asset lock which is an integral part of any CIC. However how does this apply to St Mirren as the club itself has the assets and is not becoming a CIC? The 10000 hours CIC as far as I can see will have no assets so how is the asset lock a benefit. Perhaps someone can explain how the asset lock of a company which has no assets benefits a private company (St Mirren) which has the assets. One of the key benefits to the club as argued by the proponents of this doesn’t seem to stack up.

It does stack up, the CIC will have 52% and therefore control of the assets. The lock means the ground, car park, training complex and other land are safe.

It seems that the a major driver for all of this is the desire for a group of directors to get a pay off and that may be fair enough as I’m sure they feel they’ve done their bit and deserve it. But the club is more important than the financial interests of any group of individual and we shouldn’t be embarking on any risky ventures. Another driver seems to be the desire for Richard Atkinson to get control of the club via this model. Why then isn’t he putting in any investment of his own into the club, even a modest one? He may be a nice guy, and I don’t doubt that he is well intentioned, but what exactly is his track record in business. If we are effectively letting this guy run the club what prior experience does he have that would make him a suitable candidate to run a football club like St Mirren.

You may have missed it, but Richard has paid the legal and setup fees for this and those will be in 6 figures. His track record is as part of the Maxi Group.

If the CIC model is the way to go then why hasn’t RA simply got the finance together to buy the controlling interest in the club and then transform it into a CIC? This would seem to me a much more sensible and straightforward way to go than setting up a CIC as a separate entity, which then takes on debt, which has to be paid off. There may be a simple answer to this. I can’t see one.

Purchasing the club that way would either require RA to pay £1.4 million in tax or put a loan against the club.

St Mirren at the moment is basically financially sound and largely debt free. Things are not perfect at the club but we seem to be fairly stable at the moment. The more I look at the CIC proposal the more I become convinced that it is potentially a dangerous leap in the dark and a route we should not be taking.

It's a lot better than a single investor and gives the control some fans have demanded. SMISA were never going to get much involvement and getting the community behind the club is the only way forward. It is a dangerous leap, but luckily some of us have been there before and there will be others who have their own experiences that will become key. I do understand it's impossible to trust things like that without hindsight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The anonymity of the internet makes it a poor medium for debate and this is obviously one of the biggest problems that the CiC will face in running the club. As a support and by the looks of this thread we cannot agree on the colour of the colour of dugs jobby, Let alone run a football club.

Believe it or not on this thread has roughly 1700 posts but only has 122 unique posters and these statistics obviously don’t take into account any aliases or other internet bawbagary that goes on.

There have been a number of good questions asked on this thread and good answers given by 10000 Hours or other posters who seem to have an understanding of what is being proposed.

However there has also been quite a lot of hostile questions and answers by pro and anti CiC posters with the odd personal insult and attack on other posters or members of the CIC…. The sort of attacks or comments that you just would not make in a face to face meeting.

My advice to anyone one reading this thread who is still not sold on the CiC is to go along to the public meetings, listen to what they are proposing I have yet to see a question on this thread that wouldn’t be answered by Richard or the team behind this.

For me I can see no reason why this shouldn’t work…… I don’t have the evidence to back it up but St Mirrens turnover especially if / when we get relegated back to the first division will not be much larger (perhaps even smaller) than some of the larger Rugby or Cricket clubs down in England who run on a similar model to the one being proposed by the CiC.

As great a job as Stuart Gilmore and the other directors have done in getting us where we are you cannot convince me that there isn’t another 5 fans who are buying into the CiC concept that could do a similar job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a Saints fan of over 40 years now I’ve been following the discussions on this possible way forward with great interest. The CIC model in itself seems very laudable and worthy, however the more I read and hear about this particular proposal for St Mirren the more concerned I become.

There are a numbers of areas of concerns for me, and I apologise in advance if some of these have been covered elsewhere, but I haven’t memorised the multitude of posts on the subject.

It is the case that the club is largely debt free, it then seems odd that we should enter into an arrangement that could see the club associated with a debt of up to £1.2m. Irrespective of the debt being held by the 10000 hours CIC I can’t see how this can be anything other than a drain on the club.

The debts won't be against the club but against the majority shareholder i.e. 10,000 hourd as opposed to someone buying the club and using it as security for a £2M loan. Any income the club obtain on their own, SPL, SFA, TV rights, gate money etc., will be 100% for the club. Any money generated through the CIC, organizing functions or business meetings etc will be for the CIC with a payment to the club for use of the facilities. There have already been groups identified by the CIC that could make use of the facilities during the week, these were not previously identified by the club so it is additional money for the club.

The Information Document says that “The funding to repay any debt will come from two main areas. Firstly, the enhanced trading of the assets of St Mirren FC”. I can only interpret this as meaning that any potential new income for St Mirren could be siphoned off by the CIC to pay debts rather than going into the development of the club or the playing squad. Indeed the fundraising ventures being entered into result in no apparent benefit to the club that I can see. The money raised being used to buy shares and pay off debt. If I was dipping into my pocket I would want the money to go straight into the club. This makes no sense to me.

The majority of fund raising will be through corporate and community means, let's face it 300 fans paying £10 a month would barely mean anything to the club, the fans will be involved as a 'link' to the club and this will help us ensure the community board act in St Mirren's interests as well as their own.

The Information Document also mentions increased utilisation of the clubs facilities. But there is no mention of the investment required to facilitate this. How much investment is required to make full use of the clubs facilities? What is the projected annual income? How much will go into the playing budget? The only concrete proposal I’ve seen is for a bar. What is the projected income from the bar? How much if any of the profits from this will come back into the club? I’m not seeing much in the way of tangible benefits to St Mirren from any of this.

The cost of fitting out the bar has been said to be a 6 figure sum so it's at least £100,000, money the club couldn't afford. It will use an empty area of the main stand and should probably be thought of more as a bar/function/suite/conference room. The hiring out of the bar will give additional income to the club. Imagine there is a wedding at the church that's said to be using the premises. The wedding takes place in the hospitality suite and afterwards the reception is held in the bar - the club gain from the hiring of both facilities.

Much has been made of the advantages of the CIC model in terms of community and fan involvement and it is absolutely correct that a CIC does offer that type of involvement. However St Mirren is not becoming a CIC. What we have instead is this rather complicated structure of a CIC with a controlling interest and 2 boards, along with board of St Mirren FC. This doesn’t seem to bode well for streamlined decision making. Neither does it bode well for community and fan involvement as the real decisions will be taken by an executive board which is apparently already appointed. It’s also puzzling that there was no mention of this board until the public meeting. The proposals are full of laudable aspirations but there does seem to be a lack of real detail.

I hate to imagine a board filled with the average Saints fan, the meetings would degenerate into petty squabbles, some would want to spend money the club couldn't afford and others would want to get rid of certain players or ban OF fans from the ground. This to me would help safeguard the club as the likes of choosing to deliberately overspend the budget would be vetoed by the executive board. Likewise offering Higdon £1M a year to stay would be vetoed.

One of the other stated benefits of the proposal is the asset lock which is an integral part of any CIC. However how does this apply to St Mirren as the club itself has the assets and is not becoming a CIC? The 10000 hours CIC as far as I can see will have no assets so how is the asset lock a benefit. Perhaps someone can explain how the asset lock of a company which has no assets benefits a private company (St Mirren) which has the assets. One of the key benefits to the club as argued by the proponents of this doesn’t seem to stack up.

It is not the CIC that has it's assets locked, it is the clubs assets that will be locked and that effectively means the CIC cannot use the club's assets to pay the CIC's debts.

It seems that the a major driver for all of this is the desire for a group of directors to get a pay off and that may be fair enough as I’m sure they feel they’ve done their bit and deserve it. But the club is more important than the financial interests of any group of individual and we shouldn’t be embarking on any risky ventures. Another driver seems to be the desire for Richard Atkinson to get control of the club via this model. Why then isn’t he putting in any investment of his own into the club, even a modest one? He may be a nice guy, and I don’t doubt that he is well intentioned, but what exactly is his track record in business. If we are effectively letting this guy run the club what prior experience does he have that would make him a suitable candidate to run a football club like St Mirren.

He is a director in Maxi Group Maxi group

If the CIC model is the way to go then why hasn’t RA simply got the finance together to buy the controlling interest in the club and then transform it into a CIC? This would seem to me a much more sensible and straightforward way to go than setting up a CIC as a separate entity, which then takes on debt, which has to be paid off. There may be a simple answer to this. I can’t see one.

Even if RA was to buy the club with his own money, he would be entitled to get at least the money he had originally paid back when the club transformed to a CIC so we would have the same situation sometime in the future. RA will not own the club under this, the CIC will hold the majority shares in SMFC.

St Mirren at the moment is basically financially sound and largely debt free. Things are not perfect at the club but we seem to be fairly stable at the moment. The more I look at the CIC proposal the more I become convinced that it is potentially a dangerous leap in the dark and a route we should not be taking.

We are debt free and stable at the moment but the club remains up for sale, SG and co might put SMFC as their top priority when selling but what about future majority shareholders. There are plenty examples in Scotland of clubs that have been sold with all sorts of promises about the future and who are now struggling financially - you just lhave to look at the £100M plus debt of SPL clubs alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see that a couple of posters have taken their questions out of this thread and put them into the pinned Q&A thread. Leaving them there for the CIC will gaurantee an informed response from 10,000 hrs. Let's keep this thread for trading insults. That spirit of 77 character doesn't half post some shite. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see that a couple of posters have taken their questions out of this thread and put them into the pinned Q&A thread. Leaving them there for the CIC will gaurantee an informed response from 10,000 hrs. Let's keep this thread for trading insults. That spirit of 77 character doesn't half post some shite. :P

to be fair, you havent set the bar that high yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the repsonses seem to be coming not from 10000 hours but from the group known as "every other idiot". Which is not much more helpful than writing it on this thread.

Yip, in my humble opinion that thread should be left for the 10,000 hrs to answer. It is easy to jump in try and be helpful though - and it is easy to forget you are in that thread...benefit of the doubts for those that jump in if you can muster up some deeply hid generousity of 77 spirit. :P

I'll have a swatch at you questions agin - but I am sure 10,000hrs already answered them but mibbae not on that thread. I'll post in here though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your question....

2 If the model fails to deliver the necessary income required to pay off the loans, then what does "going back to the funders" really mean? Would that be a request for more voluntary contributions or would the members be legally liable for a portion of the debt?

....was answered outside of the Q&A thread. I think 10,000 hrs were trying to be helpful answering questions in a non - Q&A thread so I can see why it might have got overlooked.

....the response was along the lines of no, the members would not be liable, a bit like if a gym goes bust the members are not liable.

I'm sure you'll get an answer in other thread.

It does prove that keeping the sensible questions in there without the unofishal forum style banter will help get the right answers to the right questions and act as a reference for interested buds. Mibbae Div could redo the Q&As for the home page or even on the 10,000 hours web site extracting all the shite responses and counter responses to keep a clean Q&A. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was just buying an extra ticket for the @ccies game - its for Mrs V so apologies in advance to the main stand linesman and Billy Reid for the level of abuse they will get. :P

On the ticket purchase page there are now two buttons - one for "Buy Tickets" and another for "Buy Membership". :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the ticket purchase page there are now two buttons - one for "Buy Tickets" and another for "Buy Membership". :)

Out on the bike today and was impressed by the efforts being put in to attract private sector members as far off as Lancashire........

post-5027-0-02631100-1303774116_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out on the bike today and was impressed by the efforts being put in to attract private sector members as far off as Lancashire........

.... was in Birmingham recently, and was impressed that he found time to open a shoe shop, as well as taking over the Las Vegas strip.....

post-5834-0-96789800-1303801608_thumb.jp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of todays pledges the club will earn 158,000 a year or 1.58 million over the course of the ten years which i think is how long we have to pay back the 1.2 million loan. (barring any mistakes in my maths)

It all looks pretty solid to me and after ten years we will be gaining extra income through this.

Also there has been no more corporate pledges for a while with the total remaining at 9. I think we are after 12 but an extra 83 individual pledges contribute roughly the same ammount as a corporate pledge and it looks like there will be over 500 of them so we don't really need anymore corporate pledges.

So it looks like we're sorted :D

My only worry is people losing interest before the loans have been paid off which would put us in a pickle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As of todays pledges the club will earn 158,000 a year or 1.58 million over the course of the ten years which i think is how long we have to pay back the 1.2 million loan. (barring any mistakes in my maths)

It all looks pretty solid to me and after ten years we will be gaining extra income through this.

Also there has been no more corporate pledges for a while with the total remaining at 9. I think we are after 12 but an extra 83 individual pledges contribute roughly the same ammount as a corporate pledge and it looks like there will be over 500 of them so we don't really need anymore corporate pledges.

So it looks like we're sorted :D

My only worry is people losing interest before the loans have been paid off which would put us in a pickle.

Maths seems fine to me! The interest can be as high as 8% so the debt is maximum of circa 1.3million, although with more grants/quicker repayments/social return on investment/lower interest rates it'll probably be lower. Also noteworthy that not every corporate membership holder may be paying £10,000 - it's negotiable depending on what they want for their money (seats) and what they can offer.

10000 hours said on a different thread that there were other corporate pledges though they were just making sure everything was solid before updating the site and holidays were getting in the way, so hopefully that number will jump a bit in the coming days.

Financially I think we'll be all right under this proposal. Given this is only membership fees we're talking about and we're not considering the extra trading money then I think we'll have most of the debts paid back earlier than expected!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maths seems fine to me! The interest can be as high as 8% so the debt is maximum of circa 1.3million, although with more grants/quicker repayments/social return on investment/lower interest rates it'll probably be lower. Also noteworthy that not every corporate membership holder may be paying £10,000 - it's negotiable depending on what they want for their money (seats) and what they can offer.

10000 hours said on a different thread that there were other corporate pledges though they were just making sure everything was solid before updating the site and holidays were getting in the way, so hopefully that number will jump a bit in the coming days.

Financially I think we'll be all right under this proposal. Given this is only membership fees we're talking about and we're not considering the extra trading money then I think we'll have most of the debts paid back earlier than expected!

I get annoyed by David_Morrison as much as the next person but you appear to have the grasp of it here :lol:

Just to add, with each "social inclusion target" or whatever they are called that the CIC meet the interest/amount outstanding will also reduce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add, with each "social inclusion target" or whatever they are called that the CIC meet the interest/amount outstanding will also reduce.

Can you convince me that you actually understand this bold statement you have made ?

I heard it mentioned at the public meeting but the explanation was very brief. I think some one in the audience mentioned - as an example 'a reduction in debt for every drug addict we take off the streets'. I think the gentleman from Kibble seemed to confirm this very vague, fairly inappropriate, and far too glib explanation.

Do you actually know how this would really work ? What is the critera ? What other 'community benefits' would count ? How would the discount be worked out ? Do you have any guarantees from the lenders as to any of this ?

Edited by animal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...