Jump to content

The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours


Isle Of Bute Saint
 Share

Recommended Posts

Much better. :wink:

Who stole your mojo - you've completely lost the plot of late. :lol:

How so? All I said was that I feel as someone who does enjoy swapping the banter on the forums, that I personally have nothing left to add to the CIC debate - from a point of view specifically relating to arguing the toss over the merits or otherwise of the deal itself. I honestly feel it's at the stage where I can say 'it's a good idea', and maybe the likes of Yul Brynner (AnimYul), will basically say 'it's well dodgy' - and it goes round in a circle. All I'm doing is stopping sticking my big gob in to say 'it's a good idea' for the millionth time. To be fair, there's a limit to the amount of times I can be bothered reading 'What's in it for the Kibbles man' - and suchlike. Nothing to do with me not being willing to listen to a counter-argument, or me dissing anyone who disnae' fancy the idea of the CIC.

Things are moving on - new announcements regarding direct debit forms, the state of play with two funders, and other things. My mojo is fine, it's just ran oot' of batteries where 'What's in it for him, he isnae' even a Stmurrrrrn fan' is concerned. I can say 'it's a good idea, and here's why I think so' until I'm blue in the face - we've been there, done that, made the pledge, saddled up the pony and rode out of town. We've pondered the meaning of life according to the Life Church, while drinking ice cold Bud in the virtual members bar, served by a trainee KibblesKid who, every time they open the till, wonders if the money for that particular bottle of Bud should go in the club or CIC side of the till. Maybe it should go straight into a brown paper bag marked 'Richard Atkinson's under the counter fund. What's in it for him?...here's the answer ya dobbers' envelope.

Get my drift?

Yeehah... to be continued. Ad Infinitum.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites


My mojo is fine, it's just ran oot' of batteries....

Your mojo's a rampant rabbit. :o:P

I know exactly what you mean. In an ideal world there would be 100% support for the CIC, but it is a corporate sales-y fact that even in a boardroom of just 12 there'll will be one cantankerous objectional bawbag wanting to knock any proposal. The reality is that the other 11 pretty much know that the objectionable bawbag is going to be objectionable anyway. Professionally the answer is to just smile and acknowledge the objectionable bawbag - Riche Rich did it brilliantly with Michelle Evans. However in an unofficial forum you have the option of ripping the pish out of them. Its great!!! :wink:

I was a bit riled by Stu's attempt to do a Paxman on the Q&A thread, but in reality anyone reading the thread would instantly recognise that he made an @rse of himself and bizarrely enough he was clearly trying to be serious. It was wildly tempting to jump in to the Q&A thread and point and laugh at him; however I do think we should leave that particular area well alone and allow 10000 hrs to keep the tone of response approriate. Anything outwith that thread is fair game though. :fishwallop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know exactly what you mean. In an ideal world there would be 100% support for the CIC, but it is a corporate sales-y fact that even in a boardroom of just 12 there'll will be one cantankerous objectional bawbag

Unless it's the r*ngers boardroom, where the new sherriff simply rides into town and gets rid of all the objectional bawbags with one deft "You're fired" move.

Maybe that's Richard Atkinson's big plan. Gets us all to pledge our lives away on his cockamamie scheme, then, once he's got his paws on our readies, he bumps off all the objectional bawbags in our support.

Could take him a while mind you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless it's the r*ngers boardroom, where the new sherriff simply rides into town and gets rid of all the objectional bawbags with one deft "You're fired" move.

Maybe that's Richard Atkinson's big plan. Gets us all to pledge our lives away on his cockamamie scheme, then, once he's got his paws on our readies, he bumps off all the objectional bawbags in our support.

Could take him a while mind you. :)

Judging by their hysterical reaction they will be throwing themselves out of the window in a corporate mass suicide anyway.

Only had a quick shifty at the progress update today, but I get the impression that the signing of the last couple of funders is going to be a public event. Hopefully we'll get advance notice so we can attend in numbers. It would be great for the day to have that cooncil planning meeting feel to it. Well worth a days holiday if that is going to be appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so? All I said was that I feel as someone who does enjoy swapping the banter on the forums, that I personally have nothing left to add to the CIC debate - from a point of view specifically relating to arguing the toss over the merits or otherwise of the deal itself. I honestly feel it's at the stage where I can say 'it's a good idea', and maybe the likes of Yul Brynner (AnimYul), will basically say 'it's well dodgy' - and it goes round in a circle. All I'm doing is stopping sticking my big gob in to say 'it's a good idea' for the millionth time. To be fair, there's a limit to the amount of times I can be bothered reading 'What's in it for the Kibbles man' - and suchlike. Nothing to do with me not being willing to listen to a counter-argument, or me dissing anyone who disnae' fancy the idea of the CIC.

Things are moving on - new announcements regarding direct debit forms, the state of play with two funders, and other things. My mojo is fine, it's just ran oot' of batteries where 'What's in it for him, he isnae' even a Stmurrrrrn fan' is concerned. I can say 'it's a good idea, and here's why I think so' until I'm blue in the face - we've been there, done that, made the pledge, saddled up the pony and rode out of town. We've pondered the meaning of life according to the Life Church, while drinking ice cold Bud in the virtual members bar, served by a trainee KibblesKid who, every time they open the till, wonders if the money for that particular bottle of Bud should go in the club or CIC side of the till. Maybe it should go straight into a brown paper bag marked 'Richard Atkinson's under the counter fund. What's in it for him?...here's the answer ya dobbers' envelope.

Get my drift?

Yeehah... to be continued. Ad Infinitum.

Thanks to Yule though I can no longer look at the Kibble Kid as a young guy in a suit as I did in the second meeting. but rather as a gun slinger with horses ready for a quick gettaway if things get outta hand. So cheers Yule

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard on the grapevine a member of the BoD is at his wits end and they have only secured 300k of the 1.3 million needed. Can anyone help ?

I can only suggest you look at the facts as they stand now. Richard Atkinson has spent 8 months on the board of St Mirren before bringing his preposal to the fore. In that time he has worked with both the funding bodies and the board to make sure it was possible to conclude a deal for a cic at the club. If at any time the board or he felt it was not possible they would have parted ways and St Mirren would be back up for sale. The message from REA is that 2 funding bodies have still to agree to the proposal. Given that 8 funding departments are involved and the amount of monies they have at there disposal will be for differing amounts it may well be possible that the final 2 have by far the most of the cash needed to conclude the deal. This could well be what you have heard (if it was a good source) and it would not surprise me if only £300,000 was currently agreed for the cic to take place. There may very well be some anxious members on the board as they have made it clear they want out and after having agreed a price and missed up to 4 deadlines for the sale you can understand their possition. The issue of direct debit mandates shows all of us that the buyout is on track as the last thing REA would need was to keep something like this going while only hoping it would go through. The terms and conditions which were laid on the table to these 2 funding bodies have obviously been met and the deal will conclude in June.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard on the grapevine a member of the BoD is at his wits end and they have only secured 300k of the 1.3 million needed. Can anyone help ?

There is an organised whispering campaign doing the rounds. It is being carried out by the same creepy buds that are making wild posts on here. They tried to recruit me for their online / offline campaign at an early stage when the CIC was announced. I have no time for that kind of bollox. I like most Saints fans had concerns early on and took the time to speak to Richie Rich - he explained in detail what they were doing and took pains to ensure that every concern I had was addressed. Not only has he addressed my concerns, he has my 100% belief that this will be great for St Mirren and great for Renfrewshire. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks/saints-community-takeover-moves-closer-1.1103704

Interesting story this.

Can Div, Sid, 10,000 Hours or any of the other CIC fans please confirm or deny that this journalist (Graeme Macpherson) is going to be on one of the Boards (CIC, SMFC or Executive) ?

How many of the other Board positions have already been 'promised' ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks/saints-community-takeover-moves-closer-1.1103704

Interesting story this.

Can Div, Sid, 10,000 Hours or any of the other CIC fans please confirm or deny that this journalist (Graeme Macpherson) is going to be on one of the Boards (CIC, SMFC or Executive) ?

How many of the other Board positions have already been 'promised' ?

animal, for clarification...my joke about being your future president is not factual - unless you buy a CIC membership and vote for me of course. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/sport/editor-s-picks/saints-community-takeover-moves-closer-1.1103704

Interesting story this.

Can Div, Sid, 10,000 Hours or any of the other CIC fans please confirm or deny that this journalist (Graeme Macpherson) is going to be on one of the Boards (CIC, SMFC or Executive) ?

How many of the other Board positions have already been 'promised' ?

Ask him yourself, he posts on here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ask him yourself, he posts on here.

Ah good, well if he posts on here. Perhaps he can explain:

4/02/2009 Change in Reg Office Address

5/06/2009 Change in Share Capital

21/07/2010 Directors/Secretary/Officers

21/12/2010 Accounts filed at CRO on

7/02/2011 Last Annual Return filed at CH

5/04/2011 Charge Lodged

This has come straight from the company accounts filed with Companies House. Charge Lodged? Who has a Charge on St. Mirren and why? As we can see below:

Mr R.E. Atkinson Richard (removed) Director

Address : {removed} Full Postcode : {removed}

Appointment Date : 21/06/2010

Total no of Current directorships of Active companies : 4

Total no of Current directorships of Inactive companies : 0

Total no of Previous directorships : 0

RA has been at the club for almost a year. If Charges are being lodged against St. Mirren then he isn't doing his "due dilligence".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah good, well if he posts on here. Perhaps he can explain:

4/02/2009 Change in Reg Office Address

5/06/2009 Change in Share Capital

21/07/2010 Directors/Secretary/Officers

21/12/2010 Accounts filed at CRO on

7/02/2011 Last Annual Return filed at CH

5/04/2011 Charge Lodged

This has come straight from the company accounts filed with Companies House. Charge Lodged? Who has a Charge on St. Mirren and why? As we can see below:

Mr R.E. Atkinson Richard (removed) Director

Address : {removed} Full Postcode : {removed}

Appointment Date : 21/06/2010

Total no of Current directorships of Active companies : 4

Total no of Current directorships of Inactive companies : 0

Total no of Previous directorships : 0

RA has been at the club for almost a year. If Charges are being lodged against St. Mirren then he isn't doing his "due dilligence".

:unsure::blink: What do the accounts have to do with a journalist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah good, well if he posts on here. Perhaps he can explain:

4/02/2009 Change in Reg Office Address

5/06/2009 Change in Share Capital

21/07/2010 Directors/Secretary/Officers

21/12/2010 Accounts filed at CRO on

7/02/2011 Last Annual Return filed at CH

5/04/2011 Charge Lodged

This has come straight from the company accounts filed with Companies House. Charge Lodged? Who has a Charge on St. Mirren and why? As we can see below:

Mr R.E. Atkinson Richard (removed) Director

Address : {removed} Full Postcode : {removed}

Appointment Date : 21/06/2010

Total no of Current directorships of Active companies : 4

Total no of Current directorships of Inactive companies : 0

Total no of Previous directorships : 0

RA has been at the club for almost a year. If Charges are being lodged against St. Mirren then he isn't doing his "due dilligence".

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Graeme McPherson which is who we were talking about but anyway, what does "Charge Lodged" mean and what has it got to do with Richard being on the board ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah good, well if he posts on here. Perhaps he can explain:

4/02/2009 Change in Reg Office Address

5/06/2009 Change in Share Capital

21/07/2010 Directors/Secretary/Officers

21/12/2010 Accounts filed at CRO on

7/02/2011 Last Annual Return filed at CH

5/04/2011 Charge Lodged

This has come straight from the company accounts filed with Companies House. Charge Lodged? Who has a Charge on St. Mirren and why? As we can see below:

Mr R.E. Atkinson Richard (removed) Director

Address : {removed} Full Postcode : {removed}

Appointment Date : 21/06/2010

Total no of Current directorships of Active companies : 4

Total no of Current directorships of Inactive companies : 0

Total no of Previous directorships : 0

RA has been at the club for almost a year. If Charges are being lodged against St. Mirren then he isn't doing his "due dilligence".

I think you have managed to confuse yourself twice on this one. I think Div meant that the journalist posts on hear; however Richie Rich also post here too - he's made a few posts as rea, which would suggest he's getting pumped by Danny DeVito. :P

You also appear to be confused by the term "charged", confusing it with what happens when Big Fras wanders too close to the Bolton Primary School gates and breeches his parole conditions. :P

I think this is a red herring post, but maybe if you explain your specific concern about the term an amnswer will be forth coming as I understand it to be a standard part of the process and nothing to be concerned about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have managed to confuse yourself twice on this one. I think Div meant that the journalist posts on hear; however Richie Rich also post here too - he's made a few posts as rea, which would suggest he's getting pumped by Danny DeVito. :P

You also appear to be confused by the term "charged", confusing it with what happens when Big Fras wanders too close to the Bolton Primary School gates and breeches his parole conditions. :P

I think this is a red herring post, but maybe if you explain your specific concern about the term an amnswer will be forth coming as I understand it to be a standard part of the process and nothing to be concerned about.

In what way is it "standard part of the process" Sid?

Could you explain what the term means and what effect it has on Saint Mirren as a concern?

Is it a loan and what impact does it have on the status quo if it is called in?

Surely you don't have to continue to stoop to ridiculing folk for airing concerns that you seem to be believe unfounded.

Edited by stlucifer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.eveningti...loser-1.1103704

Interesting story this.

Can Div, Sid, 10,000 Hours or any of the other CIC fans please confirm or deny that this journalist (Graeme Macpherson) is going to be on one of the Boards (CIC, SMFC or Executive) ?

How many of the other Board positions have already been 'promised' ?

:blink:

How the hell did you get that from a reported item in a local rag that's came from probably a follow-up call to RA, in response to the news that the CIC bid was delayed again?

You could ask 'supermac' on here. Or on Twitter. Up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah good, well if he posts on here. Perhaps he can explain:

4/02/2009 Change in Reg Office Address

5/06/2009 Change in Share Capital

21/07/2010 Directors/Secretary/Officers

21/12/2010 Accounts filed at CRO on

7/02/2011 Last Annual Return filed at CH

5/04/2011 Charge Lodged

This has come straight from the company accounts filed with Companies House. Charge Lodged? Who has a Charge on St. Mirren and why? As we can see below:

Mr R.E. Atkinson Richard (removed) Director

Address : {removed} Full Postcode : {removed}

Appointment Date : 21/06/2010

Total no of Current directorships of Active companies : 4

Total no of Current directorships of Inactive companies : 0

Total no of Previous directorships : 0

RA has been at the club for almost a year. If Charges are being lodged against St. Mirren then he isn't doing his "due dilligence".

Maybe you could explain what this means to me? I have no idea what this means or what your point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe you could explain what this means to me? I have no idea what this means or what your point is.

There's more detail on the "CiC detractor friendly" official site forum, along with a dummy spitting "love in", because apparently there are some nasty,intolerant people on B&W Army.:lol:

Basically,the assumption appears to be, that since the **** ***** [sorry, company B :rolleyes: ] have put money into the club and gone through the "lodge" process, that if the CiC goes tits up,then the club will be held legally responsible for paying the money back to Company B at some point.

There are other possible ways of interpreting it,but that seems to me to be the main point that is being made.Whether that is correct or not is anyone's guess, at present.

It would be in the CiC's best interests to clarify this ASAP, as eejits like myself, with little or no business experience, have no idea what the ramifications could be for the club.

Edited by FTOF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for the previous confusion. I was refering to RA and not Graeme McPherson. My bad.

Anyway, my post:

Company A has secured a loan from Company B. Company B has secured this loan against the assets of Company A. If Company A don't pay Company B, Company B are legally entitled to put Company A into receivership until the debt has been paid.

The "Charge Lodged" means that Company B have put a charge (security) over Company A. To allow this to happen a Director has to sign the agreement.

St. Mirren is currently being run by RA in order for him to do his "due diligence" and make this CIC deal happen, as you can see from the dates shown in my previous post. Whilst doing so, he has put St. Mirrens future into question by allowing another company to have legal rights to its assets should a debt not be paid.

Company A = St. Mirren

Company B = ???? ?????

The question a lot of people have been asking is "What's in it for him?" - I think I know now.

Why would St. Mirren need a substantial enough loan from a company to warrant a "mortgage", and why do we need it only months before this deal is due to be completed?

I don't think these questions have been asked before, so perhaps someone can enlighten me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's more detail on the "CiC detractor friendly" official site forum, along with a dummy spitting "love in", because apparently there are some nasty,intolerant people on B&W Army.:lol:

Basically,the assumption appears to be, that since the **** ***** [sorry, company B :rolleyes: ] have put money into the club and gone through the "lodge" process, that if the CiC goes tits up,then the club will be held legally responsible for paying the money back to Company B at some point.

There are other possible ways of interpreting it,but that seems to me to be the main point that is being made.Whether that is correct or not is anyone's guess, at present.

It would be in the CiC's best interests to clarify this ASAP, as eejits like myself, with little or no business experience, have no idea what the ramifications could be for the club.

The CIC doesn't have to go tits up for St. Mirren to have to pay the money back. Company B can ask for it back whenever in accordance with the loan agreement, whether the CIC is a success or not.

RA is a Director of the CIC, which is buying St. Mirren, which he is also a Director of, who have taken a loan from Company B, who he may also be a director of. He doesn't own any St. Mirren shares so he would stand to lose £0 if Company B decided to recall the loan and St. Mirren goes tits up. He has also invested £0 in the CIC which would own St. Mirren, so would stand to lose £0 of his hard earned cash.

If I have said anything which is untrue then please let me know and I will make changes to my post accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIC doesn't have to go tits up for St. Mirren to have to pay the money back. Company B can ask for it back whenever in accordance with the loan agreement, whether the CIC is a success or not.

RA is a Director of the CIC, which is buying St. Mirren, which he is also a Director of, who have taken a loan from Company B, who he may also be a director of. He doesn't own any St. Mirren shares so he would stand to lose £0 if Company B decided to recall the loan and St. Mirren goes tits up. He has also invested £0 in the CIC which would own St. Mirren, so would stand to lose £0 of his hard earned cash.

If I have said anything which is untrue then please let me know and I will make changes to my post accordingly.

Rumour has it that he now has 30 shares....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIC doesn't have to go tits up for St. Mirren to have to pay the money back. Company B can ask for it back whenever in accordance with the loan agreement, whether the CIC is a success or not.

RA is a Director of the CIC, which is buying St. Mirren, which he is also a Director of, who have taken a loan from Company B, who he may also be a director of. He doesn't own any St. Mirren shares so he would stand to lose £0 if Company B decided to recall the loan and St. Mirren goes tits up. He has also invested £0 in the CIC which would own St. Mirren, so would stand to lose £0 of his hard earned cash.

If I have said anything which is untrue then please let me know and I will make changes to my post accordingly.

It is not true to say that Richard is "running the club". He, and Chris, joined the board but it is still the collective board that are running the football club. Of course where longer term decisions are being made it is perfectly feasible that the selling consortium are taking a steer from Richard but since the sale to the CIC is not 100% guaranteed to go through they won't make any decisions which they collectively as a board think are against the best interests of the club.

I believe the "charge" is a regulatory requirement when one company lends money to another ? I don't know enough about the regs to know that for sure.

I think if clarification was to be sought on this particular matter (of this charge) then it would need to come from St.Mirren FC rather than the CIC, as it is really nothing to do with the CIC.

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...