The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours

[Wilbur]

It know it must be my age but I still can't make up my mind about this CIC deal.

In life there are occasional WIN : WIN situations but more often than not for every winner there is a loser. With this deal I see the big winners being the current BOD who get their long-awaited payout, the 'community' who will gain access to new facilities and, if I understand correctly, St Mirren FC because of the stability / protected status to be gained through being owned (52%) by the CIC.

Have I got that bit right or am I already shooting off in the wrong direction ? Are there any losers in this deal ? Perhaps the current shareholders who are not part of the sell-out gang and whose clout will effectively be zero with a 52% shareholding dictating the agenda (no change from the current status I suppose). I'm just not sure if there will be a genuine commitment to driving the football club forward. Is there likely to be any footballing ambition from the new people in charge ? (Please don't use Tony Fitzpatrick's puppet involvement in this venture as a sign of any footballing ambition from the CIC). On one hand it will be marvellous if the creation of the CIC preserves St Mirren FC for future generations but I would hate to think that the football side of things could become of secondary importance to the CIC's other well-intentioned aims. Would the fans back the CIC if all they had to look forward to was a 'safe' future supporting a toothless wonder ?

No abuse please. Yes Sid, I know I'm an old plonker, but having witnessed Richard Atkinson's CIC proposal presentation more than once I still don't feel confident that this is the best way forward for St Mirren FC.

[Stuart Dickson]

The suggestion that Provan Sports were ditched as the club's retail partner because they refused to back the CIC plan, while Carbrini @ JD Sports won the kit contract because they did is possibly the biggest load of old shite I've read on here in a long time.

Poz it might be load of shite, but I can honestly say I drew much the same conclusion and I can see how anyone would add 2 and 2 and get 5.

Look, I've been posting about individual memberships and I've made the point that I'd be wanting some sort of value for my money. For £10 per month I'd want something more tangible than a vote in club decisions and access to a bar that I won't use. On talking to Mr Atkinson I appreciate that the CIC groups hands are tied in terms of offering the kind of incentives I was looking for because it's a decision for the membership to make once the deal is concluded. So if I was to sign up at that level I'd be taking what I would class as a blind leap of faith.

Now I said yesterday I can see the benefits for a community group. Take the churches. They can sell off their building asset, get rid of their maintenance costs, and they can use a hall with convenient off road car parking having paid nominal rent and an annual membership fee. Their value for money return isn't in doubt.

Scale that up again to the Corporate membership and if I was planning to part with £10,000 I'd be wanting to be 100% sure that I was going to getting value for money. Ok a seat in the directors box might be nice but it's not worth £10,000. You need the guarantee that it's going to be worth it. Now from my position of ignorance I assumed that perhaps Provan Sports made the decision that their profit margins weren't sufficient to take a £10k per annum hit whilst JD Sports, who manufacture their Cabrini kits, could absorb the membership fee and still return worthwhile profits. I wouldn't have thought there was anything particularly underhand in that though. I'd just view it as part of the tendering process. Put it this way I'd be extremely surprised if JD Sports weren't one of the 8 corporate members that Mr Atkinson says he has lined up.

As an aside, another thing crossed my mind last night about this. I presume there is nothing stopping an individual or a body seeking to put three of their people on the new club board. For example - Mr Atkinson is obviously MD at Maxi Group, he's also involved in sports clubs (I think equestrian was one), and he could also join as an individual member. Obviously those people would have to become elected but I guess it's possible that an organisation could theoretically hold three seats on the new board giving them quite a lot of power for a cost of just £10,620 per annum.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

As the matchday bar is one of the offered incentives to become an individual member, why are these questions anything other than reasonable (even if the CIC aren't in a position to provide all the answers just yet)?

WHOOOOOSH

[Drew]

It know it must be my age but I still can't make up my mind about this CIC deal.

In life there are occasional WIN : WIN situations but more often than not for every winner there is a loser. With this deal I see the big winners being the current BOD who get their long-awaited payout, the 'community' who will gain access to new facilities and, if I understand correctly, St Mirren FC because of the stability / protected status to be gained through being owned (52%) by the CIC.

Have I got that bit right or am I already shooting off in the wrong direction ? Are there any losers in this deal ? Perhaps the current shareholders who are not part of the sell-out gang and whose clout will effectively be zero with a 52% shareholding dictating the agenda (no change from the current status I suppose). I'm just not sure if there will be a genuine commitment to driving the football club forward. Is there likely to be any footballing ambition from the new people in charge ? (Please don't use Tony Fitzpatrick's puppet involvement in this venture as a sign of any footballing ambition from the CIC). On one hand it will be marvellous if the creation of the CIC preserves St Mirren FC for future generations but I would hate to think that the football side of things could become of secondary importance to the CIC's other well-intentioned aims. Would the fans back the CIC if all they had to look forward to was a 'safe' future supporting a toothless wonder ?

No abuse please. Yes Sid, I know I'm an old plonker, but having witnessed Richard Atkinson's CIC proposal presentation more than once I still don't feel confident that this is the best way forward for St Mirren FC.

That nicely sums up one of my greatest concerns.

At best, I can appreciate that, if successful, the CIC deal should hopfully secure the club on a fiscally sound footing, but I would question just how much benefit there will be in terms of the footballing side of things in the short to medium term. treading water is the term that springs to mind to be honest. Maybe that is the best we can hope for in the current climate, but it doesn't inspire a great deal of enthusiasm in some respects.

[Drew]

WHOOOOOSH

Clearly too sophisticated for me

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

It know it must be my age but I still can't make up my mind about this CIC deal.

In life there are occasional WIN : WIN situations but more often than not for every winner there is a loser. With this deal I see the big winners being the current BOD who get their long-awaited payout, the 'community' who will gain access to new facilities and, if I understand correctly, St Mirren FC because of the stability / protected status to be gained through being owned (52%) by the CIC.

Have I got that bit right or am I already shooting off in the wrong direction ? Are there any losers in this deal ? Perhaps the current shareholders who are not part of the sell-out gang and whose clout will effectively be zero with a 52% shareholding dictating the agenda (no change from the current status I suppose). I'm just not sure if there will be a genuine commitment to driving the football club forward. Is there likely to be any footballing ambition from the new people in charge ? (Please don't use Tony Fitzpatrick's puppet involvement in this venture as a sign of any footballing ambition from the CIC). On one hand it will be marvellous if the creation of the CIC preserves St Mirren FC for future generations but I would hate to think that the football side of things could become of secondary importance to the CIC's other well-intentioned aims. Would the fans back the CIC if all they had to look forward to was a 'safe' future supporting a toothless wonder ?

No abuse please. Yes Sid, I know I'm an old plonker, but having witnessed Richard Atkinson's CIC proposal presentation more than once I still don't feel confident that this is the best way forward for St Mirren FC.

iIt's not your age Old Yin.

All I want is figures = loans = time scale = safe gourds,

It's really quite simple. 2m is a lot of money to raise even with grants awarded. The time scale to pay back such a loan will be long. What happens half way through the period paying the loan off if numbers drop.

Everything else sounds great just the most important bit that's lost. Numbers for loans and grants

[animal]

iIt's not your age Old Yin.

All I want is figures = loans = time scale = safe gourds,

It's really quite simple. 2m is a lot of money to raise even with grants awarded. The time scale to pay back such a loan will be long. What happens half way through the period paying the loan off if numbers drop.

Everything else sounds great just the most important bit that's lost. Numbers for loans and grants

I'm with you on that.

This is a good post from someone (not me) on the awfishal site

Just to add to the ongoing debate. I have now read over the document and taken a few days to read both here and on the unofficial forum the reaction of the fans. I have to be honest and speak from the heart and perhaps more importantly engaging fully with my gut feeling. There is no doubt so far as I am concerned that a CIC can be a fantastic vehicle for a local club or community organisation. Having read up on them I can see that. The document was very skimpy, perhaps it had to be, i can understand that, particularly if real outside support from new business sources rather than those with a vested interest or from within the club isn't forthcoming. I can understand why those wishing to promote this idea would wish to prolong the process in order to find that support too. Having said that I am now concerned that this proposal will actually not only fail to address the challenges that lie ahead for our club but leave us trailing in the wake of much smaller clubs due to the system we would be operating. We would never be able to address a sudden emergency where investment in a player might secure survival in top flight football for instance. At the moment the directors fork out and hope to recoupe their cash later. Although fan from ideal at least this is a streamlined approach and not a committee one in the true sense. I also see us importing an untried system that can only lead to fracturing our club into different areas of interest. Ie Shareholders, some of whom have basically donated money when asked on more than one occasion, never expecting to get anything back. CIC members who may have potential privileges over company shareholders - and for a far smaller 'donation' and fans who may not wish to become a part of a club within a club. Then there is the almost certain limiting of the clubs potential and ability to react to any given circumstance together with the long term stability of an operating system that does not require the commitment, either financial or emotional of those who are operating it. Saints could find themselves being run by an ever changing ad hoc committee made up of representatives of charities, businesses, churches, and community activists. I operate my own business and have done so for the past 30 years and am also on the board of a charity. I have seen how relationships and a business-like approach can rapidly go downhill when people have no financial ties to a project and I do not wish to expose our already stable club to what may prove to be a bit of a straitjacket. Given that there is no turning back the risks are, when compared to the benefits just too great. Nobody climbs a mountain without a rope! Sorry (or perhaps not) but I am against.

Edited April 19, 2011 by animal

[Stuart Dickson]

It know it must be my age but I still can't make up my mind about this CIC deal.

In life there are occasional WIN : WIN situations but more often than not for every winner there is a loser. With this deal I see the big winners being the current BOD who get their long-awaited payout, the 'community' who will gain access to new facilities and, if I understand correctly, St Mirren FC because of the stability / protected status to be gained through being owned (52%) by the CIC.

Have I got that bit right or am I already shooting off in the wrong direction ? Are there any losers in this deal ? Perhaps the current shareholders who are not part of the sell-out gang and whose clout will effectively be zero with a 52% shareholding dictating the agenda (no change from the current status I suppose). I'm just not sure if there will be a genuine commitment to driving the football club forward. Is there likely to be any footballing ambition from the new people in charge ? (Please don't use Tony Fitzpatrick's puppet involvement in this venture as a sign of any footballing ambition from the CIC). On one hand it will be marvellous if the creation of the CIC preserves St Mirren FC for future generations but I would hate to think that the football side of things could become of secondary importance to the CIC's other well-intentioned aims. Would the fans back the CIC if all they had to look forward to was a 'safe' future supporting a toothless wonder ?

No abuse please. Yes Sid, I know I'm an old plonker, but having witnessed Richard Atkinson's CIC proposal presentation more than once I still don't feel confident that this is the best way forward for St Mirren FC.

Wilbur, one thing I did get yesterday was that the two aren't mutually exclusive. If the community side is successful then it SHOULD lead to more money for the playing side.

If I was to cite a personal example the juvenile team I help out with has good relations with Sunderland AFC and Manchester City. Theres nothing formal there but both clubs have provided various gifts and items to our club. Over the last year my team has taken trips down to watch both teams play. Now we're only talking about 25 kids and their parents and we're talking about discounted admission but we spent £550 at Sunderland on match tickets, and £520 at Manchester City. Then the kids spent money on merchandising in the club shop, bought programmes, food etc and to be honest I would be surprised if we didn't boost turnover for each of those clubs on that matchday by around £3,500.

It's small fry stuff but we're talking about clubs that are over 200 miles away from where we are and it cost Sunderland and Man City next to nothing. If St Mirren could find a way to engender the same level of good will with clubs that distance away from Paisley as well as teams much closer to home the benefits should be obvious.

[Drew]

All I want is figures = loans = time scale =safe gourds,

I don't know about safe, but some of these look decidedly ooh err missus dodgy to me

Edited April 19, 2011 by Drew

[Wilbur]

Wilbur, one thing I did get yesterday was that the two aren't mutually exclusive. If the community side is successful then it SHOULD lead to more money for the playing side.

I wasn't really thinking about this from a 'money' perspective, Stuart. Having all the money in the world at your fingertips won't make a bit of difference if the will and ambition aren't in place to drive it all forward. The people who will be in charge are my concern. The CIC will have many admirable, praiseworthy aims that could be prioritised ahead of a successful season for the football club.

[pozbaird]

I wasn't really thinking about this from a 'money' perspective, Stuart. Having all the money in the world at your fingertips won't make a bit of difference if the will and ambition aren't in place to drive it all forward. The people who will be in charge are my concern. The CIC will have many admirable, praiseworthy aims that could be prioritised ahead of a successful season for the football club.

Why would that be? If the CIC didn't treat the fortunes of the team on the park as a priority, why would Richard Atkinson spend a year of his life even associating the CIC plan with a football club at all - especially one he has to find 2 million quid for to even enable the plan to get off the ground in the first place. I could think of less stressful ways to spend my time

If the club is successful it benefits the CIC, if the CIC is successful it benefits the club. They are seperate, but at the same time joined at the hip.

[pozbaird]

The club shouldn't rely financially on the CIC at all. It should rely financially exactly as it does under SG and the current BOD - on gate money, TV money, sponsorship money, merchandising sales, money from cup runs, money from finishing as high up the SPL as possible.

The interesting aspect is if the CIC plan takes off and generates a genuine culture of a 'St Mirren community'. If it gets off to a good start with good membership numbers, then it might be self-generating in interest. If companies outside looking in see it working for those in the CIC, they might fancy a slice of the action themselves. Same goes for individuals. Maybe a lot of fans will adopt a 'watch and wait' attitude, see how it goes. If the minimum 300 is reached easily, and perhaps surpassed, folk might say 'OK, if they're all in, I'm in too'.

My hope (and I've said this to Richard Atkinson), is that the leaders of the CIC work hard to foster a genuine sense that everyone is in this together. Individual, community, corporate - mskes no difference to me. We're all members working on the same side. There is no place for cliques or factions IMHO.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

I don't know about safe, but some of these look decidedly ooh err missus dodgy to me

You were whooshed further back so no surprise then you did not pick up safe guard.

Currently typing on a French keyboard which has letters differently laid out from an English keyboard. So bare with my typo mistakes while at work just now. You like to make digs Drew. Put the dummy in and chill out.

Back on subject.

The other thing that bothers me is when we eventually get relegated , you only need to go by the clubs history that we will go down at some point.

Fans are a strange bunch and take the cream puff when the chips are down , remember Scarlet and Blue thankfully by just a few.

Relegated matched to terrible football will see fans pulling out of CIC and maybe cooperate members also.

It might sound like scare mongering but it has a strong possibility of happening. Am I write in saying the club will not be affected in any way or form if debt is called in.

If so are signed members responsibly for the debt.

[Stuart Dickson]

I wasn't really thinking about this from a 'money' perspective, Stuart. Having all the money in the world at your fingertips won't make a bit of difference if the will and ambition aren't in place to drive it all forward. The people who will be in charge are my concern. The CIC will have many admirable, praiseworthy aims that could be prioritised ahead of a successful season for the football club.

Yeah maybe. But then it's the members who will elect their representatives and if they vote in people with no ambition they only have theirselves to blame. If they simply vote for the five selling consortium members I wouldn't imagine much would change at all on the pitch - either for the better, or for the worse.

[Gruffalo]

I wasn't really thinking about this from a 'money' perspective, Stuart. Having all the money in the world at your fingertips won't make a bit of difference if the will and ambition aren't in place to drive it all forward. The people who will be in charge are my concern. The CIC will have many admirable, praiseworthy aims that could be prioritised ahead of a successful season for the football club.

Can’t agree more Wilbur. There are two issues here.

The CiC appears to be a purchasing the shares in the club to be able to use the clubs facilities, the club brand and it contacts to fund it. The community, corporate and members fees will be used to fund the CiC. The CiC should be and has to be (if it is to succeed) set up as a business to run at a profit. A profit that will be used to grow the CiC. (I am not sure, from what I have read, if the CiC is allowed to pass that profit back to the club to fund a player)

We need the correct personnel on the board of the CiC to run the CiC. These people have to have experience in running these types of initiatives. (that excludes the current Board member of the Club in my opinion)

In essence the clubs future is in the hands of the CiC.

The club will be run as it is at the moment on a tight budget. The control will simply change from the consortium to the CiC. The members on the Board of the club will have to be individuals who can move the club in the right direction. They will be separate from the CiC however could represent both parties.

[Stuart Dickson]

Why would that be? If the CIC didn't treat the fortunes of the team on the park as a priority, why would Richard Atkinson spend a year of his life even associating the CIC plan with a football club at all - especially one he has to find 2 million quid for to even enable the plan to get off the ground in the first place. I could think of less stressful ways to spend my time

If the club is successful it benefits the CIC, if the CIC is successful it benefits the club. They are seperate, but at the same time joined at the hip.

Surely the main reason he would need the football club is because of the building and the facilities in place. Having the publicity of being involved with a top flight Scottish Football brand would be an added advantage I would imagine but could you buy the facilities that will be getting utalised for £2m anywhere else?

[div]

I wasn't really thinking about this from a 'money' perspective, Stuart. Having all the money in the world at your fingertips won't make a bit of difference if the will and ambition aren't in place to drive it all forward. The people who will be in charge are my concern. The CIC will have many admirable, praiseworthy aims that could be prioritised ahead of a successful season for the football club.

I think that is fair comment. We do need to retain an ambition to be a top six SPL club in the football club boardroom. The supporters really only care about one thing, and that is having a successful team on the park.

As far as I understand it though the CIC board will be dealing with all the peripheral activities of the CIC and it's raising of revenue and integration with the community whilst the football board will deal with the decision making and the day to day running of the club.

It's the bridge between the two that I don't really understand, I don't know how Joe Bloggs as a CIC individual member with no desire at all to be elected to any position of responsibility gets to have his say in decisions affecting the club. Maybe he doesn't.

[Gruffalo]

Yeah maybe. But then it's the members who will elect their representatives and if they vote in people with no ambition they only have theirselves to blame. If they simply vote for the five selling consortium members I wouldn't imagine much would change at all on the pitch - either for the better, or for the worse.

If they vote on the five consortium members then we have all been well and truly stitched up.

£2m in the back pocket and business as usual your having a laugh.

The club needs new blood with new ideas. I have stated on other threads that the very ideas that are being put forward by the CiC should have been implemented by the club to generate an income for the club not the CiC. The Board should have run the club as a business not as a once a fortnight venue.

I suspect that some will expect to be on the board of the Club after they have taken their money.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

If they vote on the five consortium members then we have all been well and truly stitched up.

£2m in the back pocket and business as usual your having a laugh.

The club needs new blood with new ideas. I have stated on other threads that the very ideas that are being put forward by the CiC should have been implemented by the club to generate an income for the club not the CiC. The Board should have run the club as a business not as a once a fortnight venue.

I suspect that some will expect to be on the board of the Club after they have taken their money.

Good for you Guthro for coming up with very good points.

I have no green dots left, sorry mate

Edited April 19, 2011 by Lochwinnoch Saint

[Stuart Dickson]

If they vote on the five consortium members then we have all been well and truly stitched up.

£2m in the back pocket and business as usual your having a laugh.

The club needs new blood with new ideas. I have stated on other threads that the very ideas that are being put forward by the CiC should have been implemented by the club to generate an income for the club not the CiC. The Board should have run the club as a business not as a once a fortnight venue.

I suspect that some will expect to be on the board of the Club after they have taken their money.

I totally agree with you. I was simply stating the consequences of that vote. I could be totally behind the aims of the CIC if the possibility of Gilmour and his cohorts pocketing £1.95m and retaining their posts was removed completely.

[Drew]

You were whooshed further back so no surprise then you did not pick up safe guard.

Currently typing on a French keyboard which has letters differently laid out from an English keyboard. So bare with my typo mistakes while at work just now. You like to make digs Drew. Put the dummy in and chill out.

This is a wind-up, right?

[Gruffalo]

I totally agree with you. I was simply stating the consequences of that vote. I could be totally behind the aims of the CIC if the possibility of Gilmour and his cohorts pocketing £1.95m and retaining their posts was removed completely.

That would be like buying someones car but having them in the passengers seat telling you how to drive it.

[Wilbur]

As far as I understand it though the CIC board will be dealing with all the peripheral activities of the CIC and it's raising of revenue and integration with the community whilst the football board will deal with the decision making and the day to day running of the club.

Div, I don't see how you can divorce these two Boards. With a 52% controlling interest, the CIC can pull the strings at the football club. The football club Board will have no autonomy. It will operate under the jurisdiction of, and within parameters set by, the CIC Board. Without football-minded people in charge of the CIC we are stuffed. Would you describe Richard Atkinson as a 'football person' with St Mirren FC in his blood ?

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

This is a wind-up, right?

Oh Dear , whatever you want it to be Drew.

Can we move on rather than playing table tennis. Please go ahead and have the last word if you feel the need I wont reply

[pozbaird]

Surely the main reason he would need the football club is because of the building and the facilities in place. Having the publicity of being involved with a top flight Scottish Football brand would be an added advantage I would imagine but could you buy the facilities that will be getting utalised for £2m anywhere else?

I'm not disageeing with you Stuart -.goes without saying RA saw the operation at Greenhill Road as a great vehicle for a CIC, otherwise he wouldn't have bothered. My point is that I don't buy into the view that the CIC will not be looking at on-field success as a priority. 5 of the CIC board will be from the individual membership, and those 5 will have been elected. To be elected these 5 will have to sell themselves to the members and prove they are capable. I think it's fair to say all 5, whoever they may be, will have on-field matters as a priority. They won't stand much chance if being elected if they don't.