The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours

[Tracy Barlow Loyal]

Miss Budett has a spare two million quid

Do you have her number, so I can giver her a tinkle?

[Gruffalo]

Well you shouldn't answer a question with a question, but it is a figure I have seen quoted a number of times on the forums. I was asking in my original post if it is the case that the club is still in debt, are you able to state the amount of debt that the club is in?

I have not seen a copy of the accounts. However I would guess that the huge figure that you refer to is the depreciation on the value of the fixture and fittings

The last accounts had the stadium fixtures and fittings at a value for new. A year on it will show on the accounts as a depreciated asset on the balance sheet.

[pozbaird]

My main question at the moment is why does it cost 2m to buy 52% of the club.

One of my earlier questions, before I had even heard of CICs, was 'Why did the consortium knock back Gordon Scott's offer(s)?' At the time Gordon made his move, without going into the politics of any knock-back, from a purely financial POV, my thought was the consortium knocked him back because it was too early to accept an offer, any offer not just Gordon's. They wanted to 'play the field' a bit more, see what came in....and yes, get more money for their 52%. With no queue of buyers knocking SGs door, and apparently any external bids being not worthy of consideration either - my main question regards the consortium - not Richard Atkinson.

I have seen enough to believe that Richard Atkinson is no dodgy second-hand car salesman, has no Dick Dastardly hidden agenda, and that he is genuinely enthusiastic, full of good ideas, and ready to take this on.

I need convincing about the consortium. I need convincing that they really believe in the plan - and haven't went along for the ride just to get £2 million, while privately thinking the whole idea is a crock of Neil Lennon. If they are backing it because they believe in it, great. If not - then what about all the 'only selling if it's right for St Mirren' talk? What about the 'leaving with our heads held high and returning as fans' talk? What about preserving the goodwill that still exists towards them due to the achievements of the past?

£2 million does seem an awful lot of money to me. If I were in SGs shoes, I cannot say I wouldn't do the same though - try to maximise my return on my years of investment, emotionally as well as monetary. However, if I was in his shoes, I can say with my hand on my heart, I couldn't back a scheme I didn't believe in. I couldn't put on a front and say those words in the launch document if I didn't believe them.

Fans, businesses, community groups - we're all being asked to buy into the scheme to make it work. The funding agencies have to be convinced it will work or they simply wouldn't fund it. I need to know the selling consortium actually believe it will work too. Some of SGs comments in the papers concern me. 'Better ask Richard Atkinson' is really troubling. We should be able to ask him, and the selling consortium...and get an answer.

[Gruffalo]

Not to be negative but it is a valid query. If the whole CiC goes wrong after its been implemented what are the repercussions to the club.

1. Do the loans and grants have to be paid back if so by who

2. What would happen to the 52% shares in the club if money did have to be paid back and wasn't

3. What liability is on the members of the CiC

4. Who carries the liability, is it the Directors of the CiC

Its good business practice to know and or assess your risks and liabilities before going in to any deal.

I only mention this as I aware of a number of organisations that took Lottery funding, and years down the line due to changes in business deals, property deals etc, they were forced to pay back the money. The Lottery used the excuse that the money was granted for a specific purpose and they had not fullfilled their side of the deal.

[David_Morrison]

One of my earlier questions, before I had even heard of CICs, was 'Why did the consortium knock back Gordon Scott's offer(s)?' At the time Gordon made his move, without going into the politics of any knock-back, from a purely financial POV, my thought was the consortium knocked him back because it was too early to accept an offer, any offer not just Gordon's. They wanted to 'play the field' a bit more, see what came in....and yes, get more money for their 52%. With no queue of buyers knocking SGs door, and apparently any external bids being not worthy of consideration either - my main question regards the consortium - not Richard Atkinson.

I have seen enough to believe that Richard Atkinson is no dodgy second-hand car salesman, has no Dick Dastardly hidden agenda, and that he is genuinely enthusiastic, full of good ideas, and ready to take this on.

I need convincing about the consortium. I need convincing that they really believe in the plan - and haven't went along for the ride just to get £2 million, while privately thinking the whole idea is a crock of Neil Lennon. If they are backing it because they believe in it, great. If not - then what about all the 'only selling if it's right for St Mirren' talk? What about the 'leaving with our heads held high and returning as fans' talk? What about preserving the goodwill that still exists towards them due to the achievements of the past?

£2 million does seem an awful lot of money to me. If I were in SGs shoes, I cannot say I wouldn't do the same though - try to maximise my return on my years of investment, emotionally as well as monetary. However, if I was in his shoes, I can say with my hand on my heart, I couldn't back a scheme I didn't believe in. I couldn't put on a front and say those words in the launch document if I didn't believe them.

Fans, businesses, community groups - we're all being asked to buy into the scheme to make it work. The funding agencies have to be convinced it will work or they simply wouldn't fund it. I need to know the selling consortium actually believe it will work too. Some of SGs comments in the papers concern me. 'Better ask Richard Atkinson' is really troubling. We should be able to ask him, and the selling consortium...and get an answer.

I'm sure I read in that report a quote from Gilmour, representing the consortium. He talks about how he believes it's the best thing for the club, and that each member will be taking a corporate membership.

It's only a couple of paragraphs but it shows they're still going to invest in the club at a rate of a few £10,000 a year. I'm hopeful his, "There can be no surer way of protecting the club’s future than by putting it into the hands of the Paisley community who care for it the most," quote is his true feelings rather than him talking it up to get the most money he can from it.

[Guest somner9]

I'm sure I read in that report a quote from Gilmour, representing the consortium. He talks about how he believes it's the best thing for the club, and that each member will be taking a corporate membership.

It's only a couple of paragraphs but it shows they're still going to invest in the club at a rate of a few £10,000 a year. I'm hopeful his, "There can be no surer way of protecting the club’s future than by putting it into the hands of the Paisley community who care for it the most," quote is his true feelings rather than him talking it up to get the most money he can from it.

oh! if your thought there "and that each member will be taking a corporate membership." is the case then if the CIC makes profit are they in line for a second payout?

[St. Sid]

oh! if your thought there "and that each member will be taking a corporate membership." is the case then if the CIC makes profit are they in line for a second payout?

Trumpet post of the entire thread.

I think there have been some very good points about the £2Million being paid to the consortium. I don't think many fans are overly happy about that sum of money; however most fans do agree that the consortium should receive a payment for their shares. I personally would like to see us retain some members of that consortium within the CIC structure as their experience does have value to us. SG's experience on the SPL committee for example has to have some value for us not to mention his endeavours of steering us through years of finacial austerity and guiding us through the stadium sale and new build. If SG or the entire consortium are prepared to pay money back into St Mirren and even better play a future role in the club then that would be great to hear.

I would even by happy to see cocks like you and animal invest.

[Stu]

Without as you say giving the identity. 10000hours are happy for it to be known that 75% of the Corporate and Community members required have made a commitment should the whole deal continue to fruition, and have the suitable individual support added to the 10000hours CIC, and that there are a number of other businesses and community organisations actively engaged in considering the proposition.

10000hours CIC

Would it not be a good idea for one of these corporate members to come out in public talking about why it is so good and why others should sign up? I only had a quick glance at the document last night but I don't recall any testimonies from a corporate member - unless div has invested £10k

[Bud the Baker]

Sorry to ask a question rather than answer one, but could you clarify why you think the club currently has £800,000 worth of debt?

10000hours CIC

That was the figure published in the last set of accounts (£860k as of May 31, 2010 IIRC), I know it was offset by money that was owed to the club and cash in the bank leaving a net debt of around £330k at that point in time (I don't have the report on hand at present).

When you now say "there is no club debt" do you mean that there is now no net debt or no debt at all?

*********************************

Well surely if they are inviting comment directly to them it would a good thing to do it?

It would appear the mountain has come to Mohmmed.

I think the point was that you have more chance of getting the club to respond using the contact us mechanism provided. If you want a response from the likes of me - happy days.

Joy of joys - I get to talk to the horse's mouth and arse.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Bud the Baker

[St. Sid]

Would it not be a good idea for one of these corporate members to come out in public talking about why it is so good and why others should sign up? I only had a quick glance at the document last night but I don't recall any testimonies from a corporate member - unless div has invested £10k

I suspect the corporate members will wait until everything is finalised before showing their hand. If you consider the fact that it hasn't all been completely signed sealed and delivered as yet it might also answer some of the questions around some of the numbers. I think the good news is that the numbers being offered into the public consciousness are in fact very much erring on the side of caution. If offers an interesting contrast to the hysterical objections being posted by dopey f'k'rs like you.

It is in fact a fairly modern marketing approach - promise little, deliver much, delight the fan base. It is called guerilla selling. I was one of the first in the UK to utilise it back in the 90s. I'm f'k'n majik so I am.

[bud77]

the existing other shareholders (48%) who have actually PUT money into the club are gauranteed 1 (10000 hours) board member only

How many board members do they have at the moment ? Although the 48% shareholders can vote at the agm etc., it can easily be out-voted by the 52% majority. A guarantee of 1 board member will give the 48% a little more say than they currently have (unless they always agree with the 52%)

[Tracy Barlow Loyal]

It is called guerilla selling.

Ah yes, the olde Guerilla selling/marketing. My Great-great-great-great Grandfather used to do that at Maxwellton Cross. Its a shame these old traditions have been done away with. I blame Health and Safety and all the scaremongering knicker-wetters who would close our Zoos down.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Tracy Barlow Loyal

[St. Sid]

Ah yes, the olde Guerilla selling/marketing. My Great-great-great-great Grandfather used to do that at Maxwellton Cross. Its a shame these old traditions have been done away with. I blame Health and Safety and all the scaremongering knicker-wetters who would close our Zoos down.

I can remember when you could buy wee monkeys up the high street - was it capuchin monkeys? H&S knackered that too - pretty sure they used to smoke fags.

[Tracy Barlow Loyal]

I can remember when you could buy wee monkeys up the high street - was it capuchin monkeys? H&S knackered that too - pretty sure they used to smoke fags.

I'd have loved to have seen them! At least this fella has his Pampers on...

[Evil_Panda]

It is called guerilla selling. I was one of the first in the UK to utilise it back in the 90s. I'm f'k'n majik so I am.

back in the day when you were throwing banannas from within the jungle?

[davidg]

How many board members do they have at the moment ? Although the 48% shareholders can vote at the agm etc., it can easily be out-voted by the 52% majority. A guarantee of 1 board member will give the 48% a little more say than they currently have (unless they always agree with the 52%)

They have 1 at the moment, in what way will having 1 board member after the takeover give them a little more say than they currently have?

Edited April 14, 2011 by davidg

[St. Sid]

back in the day when you were throwing banannas from within the jungle?

Just to save any more poor souls from embarrassing themselves the hairy f'k'rs in the jungle are in fact gorillas and not guerillas - although they in turns can be hairy and live in the jungle.

Here's one of my favorite examples of guerilla marketing:

Something similar at the way end when the OF come to visit would be good - make it so supras.

Apologies for the digression.

Edited April 14, 2011 by St. Sid

[bud77]

They have 1 at the moment, in what way will having 1 board member after the takeover give them a little more say than they currently have?

I wasn't aware of that which is why I asked the question. Any shareholder I've spoken with has always said they have very little say in how the club is run, yes they can vote but it has very little impact. Is there a guarantee that they will always have a board member under the current system ?

[steve_the_saint]

They have 1 at the moment, in what way will having 1 board member after the takeover give them a little more say than they currently have?

Really? I thought the entire board (minus the two CIC guys) were part of the selling consortium?

Who is the board member that is one of the 48% minority? I honestly don't know. (and can't be bothered checking!)

[davidg]

Ken McGeoch

[2becks]

Ken McGeoch

Naw I dinnae ken him ataw, whits his first name?

Sorry, I'll get my coat

[Evil_Panda]

who mentioned primates ya walloper

[Reynard]

That was the figure published in the last set of accounts (£860k as of May 31, 2010 IIRC), I know it was offset by money that was owed to the club and cash in the bank leaving a net debt of around £330k at that point in time (I don't have the report on hand at present).

When you now say "there is no club debt" do you mean that there is now no net debt or no debt at all?

*********************************

It would appear the mountain has come to Mohmmed.

Joy of joys - I get to talk to the horse's mouth and arse.

Glasnost indeed.

[Big Fras]

It seems glaringly obvious in the sums that the thing that is most risky in scuppering the CIC bid is lack of private sector investment.

Say that does happen, and the bid is left high & dry, it would be a shame if nothing was done to harness the backing being given by the actual supporters. Some good ideas are being bandied about, and perhaps some scope should be given to looking at a "member scheme" for the fans who sign up. Possible ideas...

* Money generated goes to the youth development system - critical to the club's long-term well-being

* Investors get a number of benefits, similar to what is being proposed as part of the CIC

* Perhaps a seat on the board for a supporters representative - surely no bad thing if 500 fans are chipping in £60k pa to the clubs coffers (although from working knowledge of similar schemes, there is a need for adhering to conidentiality clauses as BoD meetings can/do involve (for example) legally sensitive information relating to clubs other than SMFC

I'm sure there is plenty more than that, but at least the current debate does seem to (at face value) have a consistent theme of involving the supporters. It would be a shame if that evaporated following a lack of business backing. IF RA & Co are so positive about the supportersv involvement, and seeing as RA is now a Director, then surely some of the above can happen even if the the CIC bid doesn't make it through.

[Stuart Dickson]

So what would I get for my £10 per month? Apparently there will be a pub at a ground that I hardly ever visit, filled with people I wouldn't want to drink with and I'll get less of a voice in running St Mirren than someone like Grahamston might from posting on one of the St Mirren forums (is he still around?)

For me this is the fatal flaw. According to the .pdf it doesn't matter how they raise the £36,000. They can get £10 per month from 300 supporters or they could just increase the cost of season tickets by £15. Why not just do that then? If it's to try and gain a wider appeal then why not bundle in incentives like free accompanied admission for Under 16's? Something that would give the club the long term benefits of bringing in a new generation of supporter.

Sure they might get 300 people in the intial wave of enthusiasm but what chance is there that they will all see out the first year, never mind a second, or a third or a fourth? And with no value for money benefit, and little geared towards bringing in the next generations of supporters where are the CIC going to find new people to throw £120 per year away for access to a pub they probably won't use?

From the document produced and published, would I be correct in my assumption that the companies that are interested in signing up to date are Maxi Group, Kibble (who will probably be contributing through the "equivalent" of £10,000 through works done to fit out the community area), JD Sports (who have just won the clubs kit deal and exclusive rights to the sale of kit), and then Stewart Gilmour, Allan Marshall, George Campbell, Brian McAusland and Evelyn Purves? After all Gilmour is quoted as saying "The consortium members will continue their support of St Mirren through each taking a corporate membership of 10000hours". Is it just a co-incidence that those would make up the quoted 75% of the corporate members required? Even if you take the two more obvious ones out of the consortium you could just replace them with a firm of Glasgow solicitors, and a Paisley based taxi firm and still get the 75%. Hardly impressive if I'm right.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Stuart Dickson