The Club Buy Out - 10000 Hours

[Big Fras]

It might be considerably longer than most but this 10000 Hours thread is no basically different to most that appear on this forum - a slagfest between aliases and off-topic posts that take the debate off at a tangent. Too much slabbering and not enough information.

After months of debate I still don't know whether I want the deal to succeed or fail. In essence the only thing that really matters to me, whatever people think about the pros & cons of the CIC, is whether or not it is ever going to happen. Delay follows delay follows delay. This deal was supposed to have been completed donkeys ago but still it hasn't happened. So what's the problem ? Is it just down to raising enough money to do the deal, in which case the strong implication would be that the CIC doesn't have the necessary support from the community and the hardcore St Mirren supporters ? If that is true then RA should just piss off and look elsewhere rather than continue to waste everybody's time. Or is there another reason rather than/as well as the lack of financial backing ?

The members of the selling consortium probably regret ever listening to RA. Their payday must seem as far away as it ever did. The supporters want to know about the future direction of St Mirren FC and this shambles needs to be resolved soon.

Excellent post.

I don't think the lack of support from SMFC fans is the problem. 700+ pledges without much of an attempt to publicise the CIC bid through the clubs main databases would indicate a decent level of support. Beyond that I know very little FACTS, other than the rumour-mill that is growing, probably stoked-up by the mainstream media being used (Evans, Young).

It's been said that this forum was "used" to get the CIC agenda onside with the fans. To that end it's inevitable that opponents would use the other media options open to them.

Whatever the outcome, let's not forget that the club is actually in comparatively good shape within the context of Scottish football, so no need for panic if the CIC bid fails.

PS Sid - if Yul is a club insider / politician, then he is well out of order. If he's just another fan, then he's entitled to his opinion. I've seen many more abusive posters on here than Yul, although his arguments/western waffle content is getting thinner than Ally McCoist's transfer kitty.

[Bud the Baker]

I've said that I believe St Mirren fans are too stupid to make the CIC work in a manner that will help it achieve it's full potential at St Mirren.

Several times!

Fans appear to have been very slow to grasp that in a Social Enterprise the community HAS to come first....not the trading arm - or in this case the football club!

Nope, the distractions from the core interest of the club, the first team, is the main reason why I'm agin it. Having said that it seems to be the only game in town so I suppose we'd better hope it does work.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Bud the Baker

[St. Sid]

Another couple of strange posts. An argument presented that talks about the club being in good shape would suggest that there is no urgency required and yet there is a constant hoo-hah about deadlines being missed. It has always been the case that there would be a dependency on how quickly the social funding organisations could move. Anyone that is shocked by the delays has obviously never had any dealings in the public / third sector. The conflicting points being put forward make the criticism rather than concern redundant.

That being said, we would all love to see the CIC being formally announced tomorrow. If it takes another week or month hey-ho. The longer REA is involved in the club the better. Anyone that disagrees with that is wearing a blindfold.

[Big Fras]

Another couple of strange posts. An argument presented that talks about the club being in good shape would suggest that there is no urgency required and yet there is a constant hoo-hah about deadlines being missed. It has always been the case that there would be a dependency on how quickly the social funding organisations could move. Anyone that is shocked by the delays has obviously never had any dealings in the public / third sector. The conflicting points being put forward make the criticism rather than concern redundant.

That being said, we would all love to see the CIC being formally announced tomorrow. If it takes another week or month hey-ho. The longer REA is involved in the club the better. Anyone that disagrees with that is wearing a blindfold.

"Missing deadlines" doesn't bother me Sid - I'm not part of the selling consortium !

Serious point - what I meant was look at the overall structure of SMFC today, then look at most of the car crash that is the SPL finances. We are not in bad shape at all, hence the "no need to panic" post. If the CIC takes longer to come together then so be it. Likewise, if it doesn't happen, it's not the end of the world. These are different times to when Mr.Brearley was doing the rounds, and the noise of Bulldozers & JCBs revving their engines in anticipation could be heard for miles around Love St .

[Mr Zo]

Another couple of strange posts. An argument presented that talks about the club being in good shape would suggest that there is no urgency required and yet there is a constant hoo-hah about deadlines being missed. It has always been the case that there would be a dependency on how quickly the social funding organisations could move. Anyone that is shocked by the delays has obviously never had any dealings in the public / third sector. The conflicting points being put forward make the criticism rather than concern redundant.

That being said, we would all love to see the CIC being formally announced tomorrow. If it takes another week or month hey-ho. The longer REA is involved in the club the better. Anyone that disagrees with that is wearing a blindfold.

I think Sid highlighted the problem pretty well. The bulk of the £2 million required to buy the 52% stake is made up numerous loans and this is obviously, sadly from the people involved at the cic, taking longer than they hoped.

I don't see any real need for the support to panic quite yet.

I am sure RA and the people involved in the cic will provide an update on where they are with the whole cic sometime pretty soon.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Mr Zo

[St. Sid]

"Missing deadlines" doesn't bother me Sid - I'm not part of the selling consortium !

Serious point - what I meant was look at the overall structure of SMFC today, then look at most of the car crash that is the SPL finances. We are not in bad shape at all, hence the "no need to panic" post. If the CIC takes longer to come together then so be it. Likewise, if it doesn't happen, it's not the end of the world. These are different times to when Mr.Brearley was doing the rounds, and the noise of Bulldozers & JCBs revving their engines in anticipation could be heard for miles around Love St .

That's a wee bit like the Gus must stay argument. Mibbae if we had kept Gus we would have toiled to survival just the same last season. The problem is that we would be in the exact same position this season. Being "in not bad shape" is hardly progression. The club needs to progress and the CIC is the only way to achieve that. It also protects the club for the future. At the moment the only thing stopping an Angelo Massone type character taking control of the club is the good guardianship of the current BoD. If you don't think there are any Reg Brearley's around these days have a chat with Lavvytic to see how that attitude worked for them. Underplaying the risk is as bad as scaremongering.

[Big Fras]

That's a wee bit like the Gus must stay argument. Mibbae if we had kept Gus we would have toiled to survival just the same last season. The problem is that we would be in the exact same position this season. Being "in not bad shape" is hardly progression. The club needs to progress and the CIC is the only way to achieve that. It also protects the club for the future. At the moment the only thing stopping an Angelo Massone type character taking control of the club is the good guardianship of the current BoD. If you don't think there are any Reg Brearley's around these days have a chat with Lavvytic to see how that attitude worked for them. Underplaying the risk is as bad as scaremongering.

There's very little point in debating the issues with you Sid, as everything gets blown out of proportion:

I said that if the CIC bid takes a while longer then so be it. This is actually a bit similar to a post you made just previously......but when I say it, it "is underplaying the risk" and "scaremongering".

"Not bad shape" is just a modest way of describing our lack of debt, and excellent facilities on and off the pitch, all of which I think has been recognised as serious progression for the club.

Are St.Mirren on the verge of shutting ? No.

No need for knee-jerk panic if the CIC bid hits the rocks. Why ?

Of course there are Brearley's about in abundance, but SG has repeatedly said he would only sell to those who had the best interests of St.Mirren FC. If the CIC bid fails due to external funding issues, then I'm sure SG & Co wouldn't fling SMFC to the nearest Massone-type character, as this would be against everything that has been assured to the supporters thus far.

[St. Sid]

There's very little point in debating the issues with you Sid, as everything gets blown out of proportion:

I said that if the CIC bid takes a while longer then so be it. This is actually a bit similar to a post you made just previously......but when I say it, it "is underplaying the risk" and "scaremongering".

"Not bad shape" is just a modest way of describing our lack of debt, and excellent facilities on and off the pitch, all of which I think has been recognised as serious progression for the club.

Are St.Mirren on the verge of shutting ? No.

No need for knee-jerk panic if the CIC bid hits the rocks. Why ?

Of course there are Brearley's about in abundance, but SG has repeatedly said he would only sell to those who had the best interests of St.Mirren FC. If the CIC bid fails due to external funding issues, then I'm sure SG & Co wouldn't fling SMFC to the nearest Massone-type character, as this would be against everything that has been assured to the supporters thus far.

And ironic post of the week goes to.......

My response was a prefectly good one. Your opening line has little place in the frank and open debate you claim to seek. All we ever here is "abuse of Yul", very little point in debating, etc...

It would seem that you want to have a one sided debate without any response. Are you Michelle Evens?

The points about Massone are absolutely relevant. Good to see you are coming round to appreciate SG and all he has done for the club.

[Stuart Dickson]

Several times!

Nope, the distractions from the core interest of the club, the first team, is the main reason why I'm agin it. Having said that it seems to be the only game in town so I suppose we'd better hope it does work.

Fair enough. I understand that. I'm the same when it comes to shopping. When I go to Tesco all I care about is getting the good quality food that I want at the cheapest possible price. I couldn't care less that to do that they've got thousands of cows living one on top of the other just eating and being milked all day, or that the peasant Columbian farmer that grew the coffee beans for my Kenco has had their wages cut yet again. So long as I've got a few extra pence in my pocket and my morning blend still tastes nice I'm happy.

Thing is unlike coffee at a football club the first team results tend to improve when the business is generating more money. Right now the club has unused assets, potential unfulfilled. Involving the community means that those assets get used and there's a possible spin off for the first team if that can translate to more rental income, or by some means enticing your new visitor to purchase a St Mirren product whether it's an item of merchandising or a ticket to a match.

Not being interested in all that is absolutely fair enough - you don't need to worry about it. You are the end user. but if you are that way inclined why would you care who or what owns the club. It wouldn't matter if it's a Reg Brearly, a Hugh Scott or a Roman Abramovich.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Stuart Dickson

[bluto]

The club needs to progress and the CIC is the only way to achieve that.

Bollox.

And scaremongering.

[Big Fras]

And ironic post of the week goes to.......

My response was a prefectly good one. Your opening line has little place in the frank and open debate you claim to seek. All we ever here is "abuse of Yul", very little point in debating, etc...

It would seem that you want to have a one sided debate without any response. Are you Michelle Evens?

The points about Massone are absolutely relevant. Good to see you are coming round to appreciate SG and all he has done for the club.

1000 lines boy "I must read what posters say before replying"

My posts today were:

*Non-critical of the CIC, and basically saying that time factors shouldn't concern anyone other than the current BoD and the CIC folks.

*I also said that Yul's arguments were getting thinner & thinner

*And I also believe every word SG says when he reiterates that he won't sell to anyone who would endanger St.Miirren FC. Therefore, by definition, if the CIC bid fails, he won't sell the club to any old Massone.

Of course, its so easy to interpret the above as being a pro-Yul/Evans propaganda

Edited July 27, 2011 by Big Fras

[Bud the Baker]

Thing is unlike coffee at a football club the first team results tend to improve when the business is generating more money. Right now the club has unused assets, potential unfulfilled. Involving the community means that those assets get used and there's a possible spin off for the first team if that can translate to more rental income, or by some means enticing your new visitor to purchase a St Mirren product whether it's an item of merchandising or a ticket to a match.

Well from what I've read there are two main avenues for generating extra revenue

1) Increasing use of the clubs function facilities and laundry, IMO this could be done without the CiC being involved. We have a F/T person running the club so why didn't he identify these underused utilities and devise plans to generate more income from them?

2) Bringing different people into the club in the hope that they'll spend money within the umbrella of the CiC, but these people will be looking for something back both for themselves and the organizations they represent - I just don't think it'll work.

Not being interested in all that is absolutely fair enough - you don't need to worry about it. You are the end user. but if you are that way inclined why would you care who or what owns the club. It wouldn't matter if it's a Reg Brearly, a Hugh Scott or a Roman Abramovich.

What gave you the impression that I'm not interested in who owns the club? I'm certainly not going to join the CiC, however I'm still interested in who controls the club.

[St. Sid]

*And I also believe every word SG says

Good to hear.

[St. Sid]

Well from what I've read there are two main avenues for generating extra revenue

1) Increasing use of the clubs function facilities and laundry, IMO this could be done without the CiC being involved. We have a F/T person running the club so why didn't he identify these underused utilities and devise plans to generate more income from them?

2) Bringing different people into the club in the hope that they'll spend money within the umbrella of the CiC, but these people will be looking for something back both for themselves and the organizations they represent - I just don't think it'll work.

What gave you the impression that I'm not interested in who owns the club? I'm certainly not going to join the CiC, however I'm still interested in who controls the club.

Well done Btb for actually posting some clear and open genuine points of concern for discussion rather all the pish and disengenuous nonsense that preceeded it.

The points have been done to death though, but BtB's view should be respected nonetheless.

1) The club has no additional funds to invest in additional ventures. The laundry effort works as it utilises resources already there. We cannot make better use of the club function suite as there is no funding for people to staff the bar - CK confirmed that at the open meetings - so even those opportunities are limited. The big opportunity comes from the development of the undeveloped areas of the main stand. That requires funding and SMFC Ltd does not have the funding and even if the BoD opted to go into debt to get it the banks won't provide o/ds / loans to football clubs - hence the requirement for REA's company to bail us out with the cashflow issue towards the end of last season.

2) This is certainly an area up for debate. However, from a business perspective it is reasonably straight forward. If you open a bakers one of the biggest considerations is the footfall past the location of the proposed shop. If more people come through the club, more money will be spent and the fan base will grow. We are already seeing some business growth through the number of additional people coming to games. At the m*rt*n game there was a bus load of fans dropped off and picked up from the Main Stand - they all spent money on programmes, food, drinks, etc. If we get 5 fans out of the bus load of 40 odd people then that will have been good business as people sitting in unsold seats costs us nothing. All profit with no risk and great kudos for the club.

The point about who controls the club is a good one and again the point has been laboured over a gazillion times. If SG sells to a traditional buyer we will have no say whatsoever in who controls the club. The CIC will give us a say in who controls the club for as long as we want that say.

Good and genuine points for debate there BtB. Hopefully the response will be just as welcome.

[Stuart Dickson]

Well from what I've read there are two main avenues for generating extra revenue

1) Increasing use of the clubs function facilities and laundry, IMO this could be done without the CiC being involved. We have a F/T person running the club so why didn't he identify these underused utilities and devise plans to generate more income from them?

2) Bringing different people into the club in the hope that they'll spend money within the umbrella of the CiC, but these people will be looking for something back both for themselves and the organizations they represent - I just don't think it'll work.

What gave you the impression that I'm not interested in who owns the club? I'm certainly not going to join the CiC, however I'm still interested in who controls the club.

I was sure you said your core interest at the club was the first team. My main interest in Coca Cola is the stuff that's in the can. I'm not interested in who owns the company.

[Gruffalo]

1) The club has no additional funds to invest in additional ventures. We cannot make better use of the club function suite as there is no funding for people to staff the bar - CK confirmed that at the open meetings - so even those opportunities are limited.

That’s utter rubbish and if true proof that the club for years has failed to be run as a business.

What you are saying is if I turned up to the club and said I want to book the Corporate suite on a Wed night for 250 people with a 5 course meal and a pay bar. The club would say sorry we don’t have the money to pay for staff to manage the bar. We need to get a guardian angel to build us another bar.

The problem is that the club has a complete lack of foresight, imagination and motivation to do anything other than the same old tried, tested and tired stuff that it already does.

My opinion has not changed since the start I am neither in the pro or anti CiC camp. The principals of the CiC I understand and I support.

In my opinion the CiC/REA has seen an opportunity to make use of a Name/Brand/Club and its facilities for a controlling interest of £2m for the CiC the club is the side show. For £2m they could not purchase or build the facilities that they will have a controlling interest of. If people want to look for the hidden agenda then this is it. Once the CiC takes control I suspect that the club will be utilised significantly more than they are at the moment, but very little of that revenue will find its way to the club.

Which brings me back to my original point that in business you need to speculate to accumulate. The club never speculate on anything to generate new revenue streams, they stick to the same old same old. This is why the purge of ideas being put forward by the CiC are being seen by others as ground breaking. It hardly takes a genius to realise that we have a function hall that gets used once a fortnight for 8 months a year. That we need to embrace the community in the club.

[Stuart Dickson]

That’s utter rubbish and if true proof that the club for years has failed to be run as a business.

What you are saying is if I turned up to the club and said I want to book the Corporate suite on a Wed night for 250 people with a 5 course meal and a pay bar. The club would say sorry we don’t have the money to pay for staff to manage the bar. We need to get a guardian angel to build us another bar.

The problem is that the club has a complete lack of foresight, imagination and motivation to do anything other than the same old tried, tested and tired stuff that it already does.

My opinion has not changed since the start I am neither in the pro or anti CiC camp. The principals of the CiC I understand and I support.

In my opinion the CiC/REA has seen an opportunity to make use of a Name/Brand/Club and its facilities for a controlling interest of £2m for the CiC the club is the side show. For £2m they could not purchase or build the facilities that they will have a controlling interest of. If people want to look for the hidden agenda then this is it. Once the CiC takes control I suspect that the club will be utilised significantly more than they are at the moment, but very little of that revenue will find its way to the club.

Which brings me back to my original point that in business you need to speculate to accumulate. The club never speculate on anything to generate new revenue streams, they stick to the same old same old. This is why the purge of ideas being put forward by the CiC are being seen by others as ground breaking. It hardly takes a genius to realise that we have a function hall that gets used once a fortnight for 8 months a year. That we need to embrace the community in the club.

Gruffalo - spot on.

1. The club hasn't been run as a business for the last 13 years. It's been run to break even as a football club year on year. I think that much was obvious right from the start of Gilmours Chairmanship. They sold off the gym in the old stadium and they've done absolutely nothing at all to attract business in to either the old stadium or the new stadium outside of the 20 odd match days per year.

2. You're absolutely right about the 10000hours agenda. This is about facilities. I've said before that the St Mirren team is worth f**k all, the St Mirren brand is worth buttons but a 52% stake in the football stadium could reasonably be expected to be worth around £2m. I wouldn't say the deal represented excellent value for the CiC as I do think they could purchase 100% of facilities elsewhere for £2m that would serve them as well, if not better but I can understand how the concept of a customer base of 3000 already might appeal to the funders.

3. I also agree with you that the CIC isn't really doing anything that Stewart Gilmour and Co couldn't have done had they had the ability and the time to do it. I've said before that I couldn't understand why St Mirren weren't already working tightly with community football clubs as a for instance and have given the example of the benefits from doing so but then I've seen the practical side of that from the other edge where I know Community Clubs view anything from senior clubs with suspicion having often been shafted by the pro clubs in the past. Perhaps to make those bonds work you have to do it under a not for dividend model.Certainly from a marketing point of view any community run business should be able to beat the traditional competition if only because when presented with two equal choices the majority of people would give their custom to the organisation that is reinvesting in the local community.

[St. Sid]

That’s utter rubbish and if true proof that the club for years has failed to be run as a business.

What you are saying is if I turned up to the club and said I want to book the Corporate suite on a Wed night for 250 people with a 5 course meal and a pay bar. The club would say sorry we don’t have the money to pay for staff to manage the bar. We need to get a guardian angel to build us another bar.

The problem is that the club has a complete lack of foresight, imagination and motivation to do anything other than the same old tried, tested and tired stuff that it already does.

It is very much true. More than one die hard Bud that post on here have been through that very scenario. Additional staff costs money that the club doesn't have. We only have one licensee who must be on the premises when the bar is operating, who also has a full time job doing other shit. If he's no available then there's no party. It might seem a very daft situation; however it is a very real one. The CIC proposal not only solves the funding requirement for developing additional areas of the Main Stand and beyond it comes with staffing options too. Not only will we have all the additional capacity, but we will also be able to make better use of the existing capacity.

This is not secret stuff. Raise this concern directly with the club and you will find that it is very much the case. Like I say, do the research and the opportunity the CIC brings is brutally obvious. Stick your head in the sand and speculate hot air and fine you might manage to delude yourself into thinking it is a bad idea - however you will be very wrong.

The rest of your post descends into nonsense, speculative nonsense not based on facts.

Your final point is exactly what I have been posting. The club would love to speculate to accumulate. As I have already stated it does not have the funds available to speculate with. The CIC will create the funds to specualte and accumulate with - that's the whole point.

Batter out....NEXT!!!!

[St. Sid]

Gruffalo - spot on.

1. The club hasn't been run as a business for the last 13 years. It's been run to break even as a football club year on year. I think that much was obvious right from the start of Gilmours Chairmanship. They sold off the gym in the old stadium and they've done absolutely nothing at all to attract business in to either the old stadium or the new stadium outside of the 20 odd match days per year.

2. You're absolutely right about the 10000hours agenda. This is about facilities. I've said before that the St Mirren team is worth f**k all, the St Mirren brand is worth buttons but a 52% stake in the football stadium could reasonably be expected to be worth around £2m. I wouldn't say the deal represented excellent value for the CiC as I do think they could purchase 100% of facilities elsewhere for £2m that would serve them as well, if not better but I can understand how the concept of a customer base of 3000 already might appeal to the funders.

3. I also agree with you that the CIC isn't really doing anything that Stewart Gilmour and Co couldn't have done had they had the ability and the time to do it. I've said before that I couldn't understand why St Mirren weren't already working tightly with community football clubs as a for instance and have given the example of the benefits from doing so but then I've seen the practical side of that from the other edge where I know Community Clubs view anything from senior clubs with suspicion having often been shafted by the pro clubs in the past. Perhaps to make those bonds work you have to do it under a not for dividend model.Certainly from a marketing point of view any community run business should be able to beat the traditional competition if only because when presented with two equal choices the majority of people would give their custom to the organisation that is reinvesting in the local community.

Terrible post - you have no sense of shame whatsoever.

[Stuart Dickson]

Terrible post - you have no sense of shame whatsoever.

In what way? You are saying the same thing in your post. One licensee and no staff - what is that if it isn't a poorly run business? What kind of organisation builds a building at a reported cost of £12m and then forgets to use it for 330 days a year?

[slapsalmon]

St Sid, you said there is only one liscensee who has to be available when there is a dinner on, and this person has to be on the premises. Isn't it true though that the company who do the hospitality catering have staff who hold personal liscences as is required nowadays? The scenario given was a dinner so surely this is relevant.

[St. Sid]

St Sid, you said there is only one liscensee who has to be available when there is a dinner on, and this person has to be on the premises. Isn't it true though that the company who do the hospitality catering have staff who hold personal liscences as is required nowadays? The scenario given was a dinner so surely this is relevant.

That might work; however it throws in a double bubble profit scenario as Sports Catering would also need to make money on the night over and above the profits for the club. It also refers to a very specific scenario. We are more likely to run events like that mooted through the CIC programme - and we have already run a few based on the goodwill that the CIC being proposed has generated.

What about opportunities for 21st birthday parties, silver wedding anniversaries, etc....where people will not be charging their guests to attend. It is events like that, that will give us the full utilisation of resources that the club requires to really benefit from its currently unused floorspace as well as the currently usable floorspace. And let's not forget that to be able to utilise the unused floorspace we will need CIC investment to develop it - which will also produce a supporters bar.

Dunno why you don't like to hear this - St Mirren FC does not have funds available to it to invest in new ventures. The CIC provides this. A new traditional owner would need to have £3.5M in play just to buy the club, not to mention the cost of the buying process. They would then need money to invest in the club and that would need to come from traditional borrowing or their own private funds. I reckon any new consortium would need to have around £6M minimum to invest to get anywhere near the CIC's proposals and they would be far more restricted than the CIC in terms of funding moving forward. And there would be absolutely no protection of the clubs assets.

[slapsalmon]

That might work; however it throws in a double bubble profit scenario as Sports Catering would also need to make money on the night over and above the profits for the club. It also refers to a very specific scenario. We are more likely to run events like that mooted through the CIC programme - and we have already run a few based on the goodwill that the CIC being proposed has generated.

What about opportunities for 21st birthday parties, silver wedding anniversaries, etc....where people will not be charging their guests to attend. It is events like that, that will give us the full utilisation of resources that the club requires to really benefit from its currently unused floorspace as well as the currently usable floorspace. And let's not forget that to be able to utilise the unused floorspace we will need CIC investment to develop it - which will also produce a supporters bar.

Dunno why you don't like to hear this - St Mirren FC does not have funds available to it to invest in new ventures. The CIC provides this. A new traditional owner would need to have £3.5M in play just to buy the club, not to mention the cost of the buying process. They would then need money to invest in the club and that would need to come from traditional borrowing or their own private funds. I reckon any new consortium would need to have around £6M minimum to invest to get anywhere near the CIC's proposals and they would be far more restricted than the CIC in terms of funding moving forward. And there would be absolutely no protection of the clubs assets.

Sports catering don't do the hospitality. The catering company is then paid a fixed fee like a subcontractor so the profit remains in the club. As for the birthday parties etc, how can there be no money to staff them? The event in itself brings in extra profit so why can this not cover the staffing?

The personal liscense issue is nonsense as well, as anyone earning less than 22k per year is entitled to an ILA fund payment every year to pay for or to put towards a course. This costs the club no money, and every member of bar staff could do it which would then mean that there is no liscense issue. ILA Scotland

I asked the question to 10000hours and got ignored about why the void space needed to be developed. Well i didnt really get ignored, I was told because the space currently available isn't suitable for weddings or parties. I then asked "how can it not be suitable when the club currently holds these types of events, why was it suitable at first then deemed unsuitabe." This is when 10000hours ignored me.

Don't take this as an anti cic post, but I just dont see the need to develop the void when the space currently available is underused. If you own an empty pub you try and fill it. You dont double the size of it.

Edited July 28, 2011 by slapsalmon

[St. Sid]

Sports catering don't do the hospitality. The catering company is then paid a fixed fee like a subcontractor so the profit remains in the club. As for the birthday parties etc, how can there be no money to staff them? The event in itself brings in extra profit so why can this not cover the staffing?

The personal liscense issue is nonsense as well, as anyone earning less than 22k per year is entitled to an ILA fund payment every year to pay for or to put towards a course. This costs the club no money, and every member of bar staff could do it which would then mean that there is no liscense issue. ILA Scotland

I asked the question to 10000hours and got ignored about why the void space needed to be developed. Well i didnt really get ignored, I was told because the space currently available isn't suitable for weddings or parties. I then asked "how can it not be suitable when the club currently holds these types of events, why was it suitable at first then deemed unsuitabe." This is when 10000hours ignored me.

Don't take this as an anti cic post, but I just dont see the need to develop the void when the space currently available is underused. If you own an empty pub you try and fill it. You dont double the size of it.

Pretty sure it was you that suggested a third party with a personal license, as well as the outside catering company. Anyway that's all irrelevant.

Your key point appears to be that "If you own an empty pub you try and fill it. You dont double the size of it." Surely that is in conflict with the previous bollox about having to speculate to accumulate.

Are you seriously arguing that the CIC should abandon plans to develop the new bar because the traditional ownership model can't fill the hospitality suite? The CIC fills both income resources - the traditional model fills none.

I really would love to see you dafties all gathered together discussing these mad notions as a unit. We could film it and fund the CIC from the You-tube hits the unintentional comedy video would generate.

[slapsalmon]

Pretty sure it was you that suggested a third party with a personal license, as well as the outside catering company. Anyway that's all irrelevant.

Your key point appears to be that "If you own an empty pub you try and fill it. You dont double the size of it." Surely that is in conflict with the previous bollox about having to speculate to accumulate.

Are you seriously arguing that the CIC should abandon plans to develop the new bar because the traditional ownership model can't fill the hospitality suite? The CIC fills both income resources - the traditional model fills none.

I really would love to see you dafties all gathered together discussing these mad notions as a unit. We could film it and fund the CIC from the You-tube hits the unintentional comedy video would generate.

I only suggested both as an alternative to the excuse of "we only have one liscense holder"

Any bollocks of speculate to accumulate didnt come from me. Unless your talking about the point of the event paying for the staff. Which is hardly the same as a million pound development. Its common sense that if a function is on there will be extra funds to pay the 2 members of bar staff. Christ selling 6 pints every hour would pay the staff.

We don't know if the cic will fill the old suite. What I meant was by all means when the old suite is constantly booked out develop the void, but I don't see it as a priority.

ETA you said it was me who brought up the third party as if I then rubbished the idea. What about me bringing it up?

Edited July 28, 2011 by slapsalmon