Jump to content

The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours


Recommended Posts

As a supporter and season ticket holder for 40 years I have been looking at all this with interest but have not commented before now.

Nothing in life provides future-proof guarantees. There are always uncertainties with anything whether thats a job, marriage or a CIC buyout. Ultimately you can only make decisions by studying the information you currently have, seek advice or opinion elsewhere but finally you have to trust your instinct and make a choice.

The good thing about any choice is that if it isn't the correct choice you can make another choice at a later date. Always.

After perusing the information and opinions placed before me, I like the whole idea of the CiC model. I like the fact that the ethos is more than just the football club but is also about people out there in the community. A community spirit is something which Western society has little of. Providing opportunities to those disadvantaged or those that require support or providing frameworks for new ventures is a great goal which should also bring many benefits to the club. My knowledge, to date, and instinct tell me to endorse it.

There are those who obviously have reservations (no pun intended, Yul). However they are making a mockery of this important debate by not addressing their reservations in an open and honest way so that issues can be addressed and dealt with. This sniping away in whispers from the corner does no-one any good and nullifies any serious points the snipers may have. If the snipers have valid points then lets hear them in an open and constructive way because at the moment they are just turning people off. And if their points are ultimately justifiable then THEY should be blamed for their childish behaviour with no 'I told you so' chest beating as they are NOT telling us coherently what these reservations are.

This situation reminds me of Ian Gray's performances against Alex Salmond every week where all he ever did was moan away in a quiet voice without ever offering valid points or suggesting solutions. It gets boring.

If the dissenters have something to say then say it and give us alternatives to consider or else shut up. You are helping no-one at the moment especially your own credibility. If you have valid points please make them sensibly so they can be discussed and answered by 10000hours and provide more information to the knowledge base for decision making. At the moment you are doing a dis-service to your fellow supporters.

Edited by Sonny
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Why do you need an alternative? The club isn't in financial meltdown, we aren't in a position where we need to sell the stadium and move home. We're passed all that.

If you aren't sure about something then don't support it. If the CIC don't get enough support and walk away then we still have a football club to go and support.

I don't understand people wanting to run with this if they aren't 100% fully behind it.

Because the board are going to sell their shares.

If It's not to the CIC it will be to somebody else.

So if we don't support the CIC, we need an alternative…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the board are going to sell their shares.

If It's not to the CIC it will be to somebody else.

So if we don't support the CIC, we need an alternative…

Let the board worry about the alternative, why should you or anyone else put your money into something which really you can't be 100% sure about?

Why should you get behind this financially when it might not work. Yet Maxi Group has to secure its loan against the company? And in turn doing exactly what RA said would never happen: an company coming in and having control over the assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet Maxi Group has to secure its loan against the company? And in turn doing exactly what RA said would never happen: an company coming in and having control over the assets.

Not true!

Richard said the CIC wouldn't do it and that chances were any other investor would. The CIC having the asset lock would also stop it from happening.

Indeed, the above message is pretty much a reply to anyone who has stated Richard has lied in regard to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let the board worry about the alternative, why should you or anyone else put your money into something which really you can't be 100% sure about?

Why should you get behind this financially when it might not work. Yet Maxi Group has to secure its loan against the company? And in turn doing exactly what RA said would never happen: an company coming in and having control over the assets.

Freedom of choice. Like any venture there is risk attached. In the real world risk is everywhere, why should anyone be insulated from it? The CiC people have to sell their vision to us punters and also other interested parties. I'm getting involved because I want to. Freedom of choice. You obviously don't want to. Again, that's entirely up to you. Nobody really gives a stuff either way. As far as I am concerned £120 sheets a year is nothing. A tenner a month is not a lot of money to me, I can afford it and I can afford to lose it as well. I do think the CiC can work and I believe that if it does work that both the club and the town will benefit from it. So I'm piling into it risk or no risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not true!

Richard said the CIC wouldn't do it and that chances were any other investor would. The CIC having the asset lock would also stop it from happening.

Indeed, the above message is pretty much a reply to anyone who has stated Richard has lied in regard to this.

But St. Mirren owe Maxi Group 100k. So RA has not only allowed for a company to have financial control over St. Mirren, but actually orchestrated the deal. The other alternative to having this "Charge", was for Maxi Group to give St. Miren a soft loan. If they had done this then 1) I wouldn't have seen it on the accounts and no one would talking about it, 2) The Maxi Group wouldn't have the same financial control over St. Mirren and it would still be above board as it is perfectly normal.

Like Yul said, questions are being asked, but they aren't being answered.

Why is there a charge on St. Mirren?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But St. Mirren owe Maxi Group 100k. So RA has not only allowed for a company to have financial control over St. Mirren, but actually orchestrated the deal. The other alternative to having this "Charge", was for Maxi Group to give St. Miren a soft loan. If they had done this then 1) I wouldn't have seen it on the accounts and no one would talking about it, 2) The Maxi Group wouldn't have the same financial control over St. Mirren and it would still be above board as it is perfectly normal.

Like Yul said, questions are being asked, but they aren't being answered.

Why is there a charge on St. Mirren?

It's got sod all to do with the takeover though. A soft loan would surely have to appear in the accounts somewhere though, as you need to submit paperwork regarding it at year end.

There's a charge to stop 100K being shaved from the budget, plus perhaps the Maxi Group wanted to go down a more secure route for them as they have no real working arrangement with Saint Mirren prior to RA coming on board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's got sod all to do with the takeover though. A soft loan would surely have to appear in the accounts somewhere though, as you need to submit paperwork regarding it at year end.

There's a charge to stop 100K being shaved from the budget, plus perhaps the Maxi Group wanted to go down a more secure route for them as they have no real working arrangement with Saint Mirren prior to RA coming on board.

Now that it's out guys whats the big deal. Takeover close to completion, £100,000 temp shortfall normaly covered by the Bod. SG to REA "This might complicate the fiancial side of the transaction" REA to SG "No problem as i own a company that is 10 times the size of St Mirren and we have no debt. I'll arrange a temp loan facility with the proper legal transparent documentation to make it clear all is above board. End of story, oh and thanks Richard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But St. Mirren owe Maxi Group 100k. So RA has not only allowed for a company to have financial control over St. Mirren, but actually orchestrated the deal. The other alternative to having this "Charge", was for Maxi Group to give St. Miren a soft loan. If they had done this then 1) I wouldn't have seen it on the accounts and no one would talking about it, 2) The Maxi Group wouldn't have the same financial control over St. Mirren and it would still be above board as it is perfectly normal.

Like Yul said, questions are being asked, but they aren't being answered.

Why is there a charge on St. Mirren?

Desperate stuff uhhu. I think most people would commend Richie Rich for orchestrating a deal that rightly took the pressure of the long suffering BoD. Your assertion appears to be implying that Richie Rich was trying to take the club over in some underhand way by hoping that the club would somehow default on a £100K loan that it was expecting payment for. Again, embarrassed for you. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But St. Mirren owe Maxi Group 100k. So RA has not only allowed for a company to have financial control over St. Mirren, but actually orchestrated the deal. The other alternative to having this "Charge", was for Maxi Group to give St. Miren a soft loan. If they had done this then 1) I wouldn't have seen it on the accounts and no one would talking about it, 2) The Maxi Group wouldn't have the same financial control over St. Mirren and it would still be above board as it is perfectly normal.

Like Yul said, questions are being asked, but they aren't being answered.

Why is there a charge on St. Mirren?

How has RA allowed a company to have financial control over St Mirren ? RA is only one of the directors who would have collectively allowed this, so in reality SG and the consortium have allowed a company to have financial control over St Mirren. RA is alo only one of the directors of Maxi Group and it's quite possible the other directors have said 'OK Richard, we will allow a short term loan but given the state of Scottish football finances and that we've never worked with St Mirren before we want some security to ensure we get our money back.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is often said on here that people are not doing enough research on the cic to make valid comments. Here is my final take on the situation we are currently in and the events that led us here. My information comes from being a supporter from the days of the Reg Brearly failed buyout, Attending the 2nd meeting and the net. SG saves the club from certain oblivion by buying the club for around £650,000 along with 4 other directors. The financial demands on the club from banks due to loans make it impossible to build a team of note and we struggle in the 1st div. We are almost releguated to div 2 and had reached the ultimate low point with the club running out of money with weeks to go to the end of the season. More borrowing and the appointment of Tom Hendry see up promoted. Season ends in a financial disaster as we are subsequently relegated the following season despite shelling out a massive increase in wages. SG makes plans to move stadium to clear debt and Gus McPherson leads us back to the spl. The ground move is completed and our debt is cleared. At this point i was looking to a brighter future for St Mirren and the reason was as follows: SG made it clear that the new stadium had far better resources to generate income from outside football with a mixture of business, public and communtity usage within the new stadium. Sadly that has not transpired but there are legitimate reasons why. St Mirren operate with an exremely low buget for an spl club and that includes the lowest amount of paid staff in the league. Falkirk generate £1M per annum from their stadium and there is no reason why we can't beat that with the right approach. They employ 4 full time staff to achieve this goal and we employ 1. Although there has been a bit of "how do we solve al our problems with a F****n bar" on here those who post this miss the point. The reason it IS so important is to create a facility that can be offered to the outside community AND meet ALL their needs for ANY event be it a wedding, party, buisness or training. If you don't have the facility to sell (as we currently don't) then we CAN'T sell it like Falkirk do. SG makes an important point about new ENERGYwhich is needed to take the club forward and that is just as important as anything.The current board are tired having being ravished by the many years keeping the club afloat (and i thank them for that). REA dosn't need St Mirren. He has a company which is 10 times our size. It has no debt and makes use of the very latest hi tech equipment including IT which frees up time for him to do other things (like a cic for St Mirren). His reputation (which is currently excelent) would be damaged by any wrongdoing or failure in this venture. Our total turnover of £3.4 million would be like a good sized contract for Maxi Group. He is in a good position to do things he is interested in like going to Romania and helping out people less well of than himself. The idea that REA somehow needs to extort money from our DD or is somehow going to strip our assets is quite simply stupid. We are a small fry company in comparison to Maxi and indeed the kibble who's turnover is £20M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whoooa pardners, hold them horses - this is a warning.

Hi y’all, Yul here just pulled into town after another week away. Can I just put a coupla cowpokes straight. I am just lil’ ol me - honest injuns. I won’t go into the techie reasons for explaining the way the Magnificent 7 posts are posted. Maybe I don’t know how to use this new fangled elektrikety. But there are reasons.

It’s amazing that when you look back the Magnificent posts and see how many of the questions we raise are answered; the pesky stuff like a top heavy club and no extra dollars for the team. As always the response is limited to attacking me/us rather than a direct answer. Some villagers even have the cheek to claim not to understand them due to my westerneeze. What a load of bunkem. Of course you understand them.

Anyway pardners having returned home to the township I leapt down from the stage to find that ‘The Stranger’, the one who told three meetings that he could go to the bank and just buy OUR CLUB for $2million greenbacks (and that was preferable to spending 5 million of his quaint Scotch poonds after the darned taxman had swiped a share) had arranged to ‘invest’ $100,000 in our club. This does not make the SMISA posse look too darned bright, them having swallowed his tale of INVESTING his OWN cash in SMFC. They believed that because they had put some degree of faith in the Stranger. They were wrong.

Strange from a Stranger that he didn’t arrange to have this cash wired to him from his own account and lend it to the club interest free. Him being dead against putting the club into ‘any kind of debt, so we just thought, let’s have a go’. After all he wants a big fat zero from the club, doesn’t he? Instead he chooses to bring about a loan situation that is, IF he is to be believed, quite unnecessary. He is now the Loan aRanger, which is appropriate as he should be wearing a mask if he pulls off taking over a Premier League Football (remember that?) club in this way.

Well hiya Yule. Been following ya on here for some time now and unlike some don't take ya tooo seriously on here with the calls for hunting you out and shooting ye down. I kinnda feel that this wire should kinda be free for all and the most important decisions taken elswhere. I Kinda think that you and the other 6 (maybee 5,4,3,2 or 1 ) though have come to the coral. Ritchie Rich is awaiting you with the Kibble kid at his side. Tony Fitz is on standby as we all wanna fair fight. Post an email to 10000hrs.org as i have already had conformation that your showdown will be met( hope ya don't mind me making advance provision) at a time your in town.

Then we have not one, but two reports to the Mag7 of seats on the SMFC board being offered as sweeteners to well known supporters, one a pesky reporter who was at the Stranger’s table at the annual Saints shindig last week.

Now I return to find that once gain as a delay is announced - that’s another delay - but the board are being patient. Nope partners, the board are being DESPERATE. Then as if by magic the request for well meaning, villagers who have faith in the Stranger to send in their financial details is also announced, a diversion if ever there was one.

Truly he is a desperado himself. Give the impression of lots happening. Lawdy, the comments on the forums show how this works. Read them back pardners. ‘There’s no going back’,’ it’s happening’, ‘20% more for the team budget, etc. Scarey. The Heraldo newssheet heralds that the deal might go through. There’s lots of mights and maybes in all of this. And guess what, the ‘story’ is written by, ehm, now where did us 7ers see this reporter before? Oh yes at the Stranger’s table at the Shindig. Just co-incidence though?

Fire, smoke… smoke signals, for heaven’s sake (oops sorry a touch of religion crept in there) read them darned puffs.

Next up is the direct debits. Nope wait a cotton pickin minute here. Anyone can see from all of this just how entrenched views are becoming amongst the fans, on forums and in conversation. One forum is even bad mouthing the other now. It’s the human way. Folks around here will just take up tribal sides. The school you went to. The team you support, the street you were brought up in. That’s just a taste of what our Club will become if the CIC was to become a reality. In-fighting, different groupings, no overall agreement, fans who felt they would have a say finding out the world is not flat. Why, as the good book says, there’s none so blind as those who will not see. But it’s worth a punt, for a year, isn’t it? Let’s take a chance. There’s no alternative. Yessiree there damned well is and everyone knows it.

So to Direct debits.

To all who have sent in private financial details to a ‘Stranger’ or his sidekick keep your hand on the trigger. Would you have done so in this way for anyone else? Would you have done so with a company outside of St. Mirren that you don’t know/

Who has access to your personal banking information?

How are they accountable to you?

How secure is your private information?

Where is it being stored?

Has it been requested in accordance with regulatory requirements?

Does 10,000 hours comply with the data protection act?

Were you informed of all of this in advance?

If you cancel what happens to your stored details?

As ever I stand accused alongside my six colleagues of only posing questions. Guilty Sheriff.

If this CIC was about the entire club, not divisive, no prospect of splitting our faithful supporters, no stabbing in the back decent fans both rich and poor who have put in dollars to help the club in the past, would be centred on football (that’s the game we play Stranger) meant real investment to help us compete on the pitch, did not involve a ‘well we’ll see some financial impact in seven to ten years’, maybe, if local heroes were not now concerned for their reputations, if some directors wished they had never gone along with this, if shareholders had been consulted first as they were told they would be by the Stranger himself, if the Stranger knew the first thing about football, ‘I’m a Scotland supporter’, first meeting,’ I don’t know about football’, third meeting, if as he said he had around 400 shares, if he really did have, as he said 400 employees, if he had not chosen to create a debt similar to the type he specifically said he was against, if the Kibble Kids were not showing some signs of cold feet, if he was willing to invest real dollars, if he hadn’t fallen out with SMISA, if he didn’t want to use taxpayers dollars, if he wasn’t asking OUR FANS to sign up to something he wouldn’t, if he would TRANSPARENTLY reveal the investing companies, if he didn’t depend on the confidentiality hoary old chestnut, if……………………. Maybe, I would agree this was the best thing since firewater in the ol saloon.

We’re all on the same side, St. Mirren Football Club Limited. Is he, as you say in ole Scotchland? Aye right.

We may have to call in the Pinkerton, no not Bobby, Agency on this one, only they could get to the bottom of all of this, our fans sure as hell, sorry heaven, haven’t. Now ain’t that the truth.

Be careful Buddies.

Yul and the other Magnificent Buds

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shush.... don't mention any of the following to our resident Mothrwell supporter. SG "Motherwell and Dundee Utd now don't have any sugar daddies". The result will be they have to work in the real world of Scottish football budgets. Both clubs are currently operating with far higher wages than is sustainable. Reality calls and we will see a new order in club sustainability which our cic will take us to a position of strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an add on.. Kilmarnock are goosed, Aberdeen ...well gubbed. Hearts are ok with mad vlad but what if he walks away?.... Hibs should be ok. The rest seem ok .... The pretend saints etc. But we can use this opportunity to make a real impact in the spl from a position of strength if we all pull together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but if say 400 pledges turn into 400 members of the cic and the cic goes through, then less fans will ‘own’ the club than do now. I say own because the cic will have 52% share. Even with over 900 shareholders at least they can vote directly with the board who are the decision makers, not have a one in 400 vote at a cic that then has a vote to tell a SMFC board what to do, but might be overturned by an executive board before being able to do so. AND PAYING £10 A MONTH FOR THE PRIVILIGE.

As season ticket sales will no doubt drop this season then the promised cic 20% increase in team budget will be even more impossible from the off. How would the cic deal with a drop in budget overall ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I don't know what name uses that would be difficult. However I am sure we would all be interested in the answer, so why has he not replied to my post yet.

It seems a wee bit of a conflict of interest to be promoting, in your newspaper a financial scheme in which you may end up being a director.

Hope I am wrong.

Two days later ................... still no answer !

Edited by animal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but if say 400 pledges turn into 400 members of the cic and the cic goes through, then less fans will own the club than do now. I say own because the cic will have 52% share. Even with over 900 shareholders at least they can vote directly with the board who are the decision makers, not have a one in 400 vote at a cic that then has a vote to tell a SMFC board what to do, but might be overturned by an executive board before being able to do so. AND PAYING £10 A MONTH FOR THE PRIVILIGE.

As season ticket sales will no doubt drop this season then the promised cic 20% increase in team budget will be even more impossible from the off. How would the cic deal with a drop in budget overall ?

The Priory awaits.

What you fail to mention is that the 900 share holders have NO (worthwhile) say in what happens. The selling consortium can railroad ANY decision they see fit provide it complies with legislation. Having a nominal shareholding in a football club gives absolutely NO power to those involved.

400 folk having a say in proceedings as apposed to 5 folk - Ye, that makes fans have less of an influence :unsure: . I think the Animal/Yul should go back to the zoo where he belongs.

Edited by civilsaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same person -not plural :lol:

Imagine having to create duplicate personas to give any weight to your cause. :lol:

Your post is worthless.

Every question that could have been asked has been asked by now has been thrice over.

The good people from 10000hrs have better things to do so behave yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But St. Mirren owe Maxi Group 100k. So RA has not only allowed for a company to have financial control over St. Mirren, but actually orchestrated the deal. The other alternative to having this "Charge", was for Maxi Group to give St. Miren a soft loan. If they had done this then 1) I wouldn't have seen it on the accounts and no one would talking about it, 2) The Maxi Group wouldn't have the same financial control over St. Mirren and it would still be above board as it is perfectly normal.

Like Yul said, questions are being asked, but they aren't being answered.

Why is there a charge on St. Mirren?

The only reason we are talking about it is because it was OPEN AND TRANSPARENT, allowing yourself to see it and raise the concern in the first place! If they had done it the way you say above and it got out, then the detractors would be shouting Blue Murder.

Damned if you do and damned if you don't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pozbaird got an answer on the thread, so I thought I'd pose my question too.

Always appreciate a point in the right direction. :). Cheers.

Even better if you can do it without trying to be a smart arse. Maybe next time.

:booty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fed up with all of this - the next time I read the phrase 'open and transparent' I hope it's in relation to the attire worn by Susanna Reid on the BBC Breakfast show.

That is all. Where's my 3rd coffee of the day gone? I'll tell you something else - this preacher man and his Kibble Kid... I hope their coffee bar at the ground does a cup that is as good as a Costa flat white.

On reflection, maybe I've had too much caffeine this morning. :rolleyes:

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

RA is alo only one of the directors of Maxi Group and it's quite possible the other directors have said 'OK Richard, we will allow a short term loan but given the state of Scottish football finances and that we've never worked with St Mirren before we want some security to ensure we get our money back.'

A very good point that I hadn't considered before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm fed up with all of this - the next time I read the phrase 'open and transparent' I hope it's in relation to the attire worn by Susanna Reid on the BBC Breakfast show.

Is that before or after you CTB chased her up and down the street in a fire service vehicle while impersonating a police officer? :D

Edited by ds10
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...