Jump to content

Your alternative option to the CIC


pozbaird

Recommended Posts


Simple thread. No arguing, no shouting each other down. If you aren't supportive of the CIC plan, and would like to see it kicked into touch, what viable alternative would you support?

We put all our eggs in one basket. We all put a tenner a month away, wait for the next Euromillions rollover, buy thousands of tickets and hope for the best!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple thread. No arguing, no shouting each other down. If you aren't supportive of the CIC plan, and would like to see it kicked into touch, what viable alternative would you support?

Reg Brearly...............................just joking.:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the only other option is for the club to remain up for sale being run as it is now by the same people who failed to come up with any ideas on how to use the big empty spaces within a football ground. Which isn't a bad thing if your main aim is to restrict the air supply to something that needs to breathe. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

My understanding of the CIC is still slightly vague so I caveat everything said below by acknowledging I may not have picked everything up.

There are certainly positives the whole concept would bring -

  • The fact no one individual can come along and break up the club (e.g Reg Brealey)
  • Better utilisation of club facilities resulting in greater income for the club
  • Greater services/facilities being offered to the community
  • Regular fans feeling a part of the club

I see the drawbacks being as follows -

  • The transaction will involve debt, albeit not in the club's name. As such some money which comes into the club will be used to pay off interest and therefore not going to the club.
  • There does appear to be a lack of planning/thought given to what if members lose interest and cancel their DD (people are saying there is no risk as we would then be in the same position as we are now. Maybe so but what assets are the debt secured over? Money would have to come from somewhere to pay back debt and the way I see it the club have assets, the CIC do not).
  • Current shareholders will surely feel disillusioned with it all (say I put £10k into the club a couple of years ago - I now have less say than someone paying £10 a month? Surely that is not right?).
  • Decision making could be a long process as everyone needs to have their say and we are already talking about 3 different boards for what is effectively running a football club.
  • The whole model is untried (I'm not even sure this is a real consideration tbh as someone has to be the first to try anything)

To benefit from the advantages above, do we really need to go through as large, risky and complicated a scheme as being proposed by Richard Atkinson? Could discussions not take place with the selling consortium and current shareholders with a view to the following -

  • The articles of the club are altered whereby one individual cannot own more than - say - 5% of the club? This would therefore protect us against another Reg Brealey type scenario. Now I know the selling consortium would have to push this change through (and also agree to sell shares individually) however those individuals have regularly stated they want what's best for the club and IF the consensus was this was best, would they push the change through? They would probably have to be paid over a few years also.
  • The same sort of "offers" as the CIC would offer could be replicated whereby businesses acquring £10k of shares get various perks. Individuals acquiring £3k of shares (or whatever value) could get perks too.
  • Shareholders can then elect a board of directors to run the club. 1 Board made of of X number of people. Re-appointed on an annual basis. Directors have to act in the interest of shareholders therefore major issues could still be voted on by the ordinary shareholder.
  • No debt would be involved therefore any money paid into the club would not be lost to interest payments.
  • Shareholders/fans could simply pay money into the club if they wished on any scale.
  • Greater use of facilities and integration with the community is simply made to happen. This does not require a CIC set up.
  • Shareholder meetings held on a regular basis, say quarterly to discuss and vote on major issues.

As I have said above perhaps I am missing something and if so let me know. I am not against the CIC, I just think all avenues should be considered before we go down a particular route. Overall I see the above approach being a way of incurring the benefits without as many drawbacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

My understanding of the CIC is still slightly vague so I caveat everything said below by acknowledging I may not have picked everything up.

There are certainly positives the whole concept would bring -

  • The fact no one individual can come along and break up the club (e.g Reg Brealey)
  • Better utilisation of club facilities resulting in greater income for the club
  • Greater services/facilities being offered to the community
  • Regular fans feeling a part of the club

I see the drawbacks being as follows -

  • The transaction will involve debt, albeit not in the club's name. As such some money which comes into the club will be used to pay off interest and therefore not going to the club.
  • There does appear to be a lack of planning/thought given to what if members lose interest and cancel their DD (people are saying there is no risk as we would then be in the same position as we are now. Maybe so but what assets are the debt secured over? Money would have to come from somewhere to pay back debt and the way I see it the club have assets, the CIC do not).
  • Current shareholders will surely feel disillusioned with it all (say I put £10k into the club a couple of years ago - I now have less say than someone paying £10 a month? Surely that is not right?).
  • Decision making could be a long process as everyone needs to have their say and we are already talking about 3 different boards for what is effectively running a football club.
  • The whole model is untried (I'm not even sure this is a real consideration tbh as someone has to be the first to try anything)

To benefit from the advantages above, do we really need to go through as large, risky and complicated a scheme as being proposed by Richard Atkinson? Could discussions not take place with the selling consortium and current shareholders with a view to the following -

  • The articles of the club are altered whereby one individual cannot own more than - say - 5% of the club? This would therefore protect us against another Reg Brealey type scenario. Now I know the selling consortium would have to push this change through (and also agree to sell shares individually) however those individuals have regularly stated they want what's best for the club and IF the consensus was this was best, would they push the change through? They would probably have to be paid over a few years also.
  • The same sort of "offers" as the CIC would offer could be replicated whereby businesses acquring £10k of shares get various perks. Individuals acquiring £3k of shares (or whatever value) could get perks too.
  • Shareholders can then elect a board of directors to run the club. 1 Board made of of X number of people. Re-appointed on an annual basis. Directors have to act in the interest of shareholders therefore major issues could still be voted on by the ordinary shareholder.
  • No debt would be involved therefore any money paid into the club would not be lost to interest payments.
  • Shareholders/fans could simply pay money into the club if they wished on any scale.
  • Greater use of facilities and integration with the community is simply made to happen. This does not require a CIC set up.
  • Shareholder meetings held on a regular basis, say quarterly to discuss and vote on major issues.

As I have said above perhaps I am missing something and if so let me know. I am not against the CIC, I just think all avenues should be considered before we go down a particular route. Overall I see the above approach being a way of incurring the benefits without as many drawbacks.

If I'm picking this up wrongly, please accept my apologies. I'm reading from your post that the club could themselves have done / be doing a lot of the things that the CIC are proposing - in regard to greatly increasing club revenue, use of facilities, marketing the club etc. Basically the stuff the CIC are confident they can deliver to increase revenue.

Who in the club would do it?

With all due respect, it took a a ginger fud and his three hombres to even make the club realise that a book about a 115 year old stadium might be a good idea, so who in there at present would do the stuff the CIC will do?

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current BOD are tired, they want out.

Well why don't they step down then?

All they want is their pay off, why else have they been snapping up shares left right and centre?

Here is the real alternative.

Do not support the CIC, have a fresh BOD's voted in. Build the members bar and continue to run a tight ship at St Mirren Football Club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm picking this up wrongly, please accept my apologies. I'm reading from your post that the club could themselves have done / be doing a lot of the things that the CIC are proposing - in regard to greatly increasing club revenue, use of facilities, marketing the club etc. Basically the stuff the CIC are confident they can deliver to increase revenue.

Who in the club would do it?

With all due respect, it took a a ginger fud and his three hombres to even make the club realise that a book about a 115 year old stadium might be a good idea, so who in there at present would do the stuff the CIC will do?

I think the guy made a very balanced post. The "ideas bank" generated by the CIC debate has been terriffic.....but not something that couldn't have been done if a consultant had been brought in to look at furthering commercial opportunities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm picking this up wrongly, please accept my apologies. I'm reading from your post that the club could themselves have done / be doing a lot of the things that the CIC are proposing - in regard to greatly increasing club revenue, use of facilities, marketing the club etc. Basically the stuff the CIC are confident they can deliver to increase revenue.

Who in the club would do it?

With all due respect, it took a a ginger fud and his three hombres to even make the club realise that a book about a 115 year old stadium might be a good idea, so who in there at present would do the stuff the CIC will do?

There are shareholders such as that poster who have pumped in a lot of money into the club. These guy's should have a far bigger say than they do at present. If I had put in a lot of money such as Glasgow Saint GLS and others I would be an extremely angry man.

Especially when you consider the current board will get their money back combined with a seat on the board if they so wish.

It look like I'm fine jack f**k you.

That is one side of this takeover that leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Split the club into two seperate companies each with its own board of directors , and even allow for individuals to be on both boards .

One company would be a CIC , and would be responsible for the stadium and Ralston complex , this would represent the %52 share holding up for sale, and would allow the CIC to progress with the excellent plans and ideas that they are proposing. This would also mean that land , stadium etc could be asset locked .

The other company representing the other %48 of the share holding would be responsible for the footballing side of the club .

Everyones a winner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Split the club into two seperate companies each with its own board of directors , and even allow for individuals to be on both boards .

One company would be a CIC , and would be responsible for the stadium and Ralston complex , this would represent the %52 share holding up for sale, and would allow the CIC to progress with the excellent plans and ideas that they are proposing. This would also mean that land , stadium etc could be asset locked .

The other company representing the other %48 of the share holding would be responsible for the footballing side of the club .

Everyones a winner

Correct me if. I'm wrong here....

If the cic gets up and running, and the majority feels that this is a fair way to run things, then could the cic members not vote for this to happen and perhaps have at least one representative on the club board, instead of the other way around?

I would be happy to vote for a scenario like this.

This would then be more like a traditional modern board where the people who have put series money into the club make up the majority of the club board but the fans (cic) have a representative on the board

Edited by steve_the_saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the guy made a very balanced post. The "ideas bank" generated by the CIC debate has been terriffic.....but not something that couldn't have been done if a consultant had been brought in to look at furthering commercial opportunities.

No argument from me on that, not at all. In regard to the existing board looking to broaden the club's horizons by bringing in fresh ideas to take the club forward when they felt they couldn't and were out of ideas - Why wasn't it done? I genuinely do not know.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are shareholders such as that poster who have pumped in a lot of money into the club. These guy's should have a far bigger say than they do at present. If I had put in a lot of money such as Glasgow Saint GLS and others I would be an extremely angry man.

Especially when you consider the current board will get their money back combined with a seat on the board if they so wish.

It look like I'm fine jack f**k you.

That is one side of this takeover that leaves a nasty taste in my mouth.

If I was Gordon Scott in particular I would feel hard done by too. I think the forming of the consortium to ring fence their 52% was divisive, and I'd be hacked off if I had been investing in the club to a high level in the manner that some of the '48%' people had too. If 'Glasgow Buddie' has been investing in the club as you say, and has been frozen out, then I absolutely am on his side. With the CIC guaranteeing the '48%' representation in the new structure - perhaps someone like 'Glasgow Buddie' could put himself forward for election, and be able to 'come in from the cold' so to speak?

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the guy made a very balanced post. The "ideas bank" generated by the CIC debate has been terriffic.....but not something that couldn't have been done if a consultant had been brought in to look at furthering commercial opportunities.

As Poz says, the outgoing board had plenty of opportunity to do this.

Maybe after years of unpaid toil and much unwarranted abuse, they simply couldn't be arsed and wanted out ASAP.

I thought the guys post was good too.It shows that you don't have post against the CiC with ill disguised vitriol and rampant paranoia permeating your posts.

I also agree that if you're a major shareholder and part of the 48%, then you would be well pissed off.However, any takeover bid is rarely painless and it's inevitable there will be losers.Not that this makes it all right. We don't know what went on between the 52% consortium and GLS, so there may or may not be good reason for what they did, other than to maximise their returns, although that's a tad unlikely.

FWIW, if the 52% had accepted GLS bid, then I reckon there would be far more of a furore created on here than the CiC bid has caused.That goes for any other outside investment too.

Edited by FTOF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is asking why current board haven't just went and built the bar, but no one really seems to care about the initial set up. According to RA the initial price of setting this bar up is a six-figure number, which is quite expensive. Maybe we can't really afford to spend the money without it damaging our club greatly.

Under the CIC ownership we've persuaded Kibble to do this (as part of the community) for free (I think?) and we can start reaping the benefits immediately.

Just an idea.

I agree with everyone talking about Gordon Scott, but there doesn't seem to be much way around this. There must have been a reason for what they've done? There's certainly little the CIC can do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the doubters are out there turn up at the meeting on Thursday, and things will be explained to you, i was there on Tuesday, These guys are up for this plan and come across well, dont think there is a alternative, unless someone does win the euromillions roll over :wink:

Edited by santaponsasaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys,

My understanding of the CIC is still slightly vague so I caveat everything said below by acknowledging I may not have picked everything up.

There are certainly positives the whole concept would bring -

  • The fact no one individual can come along and break up the club (e.g Reg Brealey)
  • Better utilisation of club facilities resulting in greater income for the club
  • Greater services/facilities being offered to the community
  • Regular fans feeling a part of the club

I see the drawbacks being as follows -

  • The transaction will involve debt, albeit not in the club's name. As such some money which comes into the club will be used to pay off interest and therefore not going to the club. Any transaction to buy the club is likel;y to invole debt, look at the Liverpool/Man Utd takeover's where the debt was secureed the clubs.
  • There does appear to be a lack of planning/thought given to what if members lose interest and cancel their DD (people are saying there is no risk as we would then be in the same position as we are now. Maybe so but what assets are the debt secured over? Money would have to come from somewhere to pay back debt and the way I see it the club have assets, the CIC do not). The club's assets will be asset locked and cannot be used against debts of the CIC, the only assets the CIC will have (at least to start with) will be 52% of the shares. What happens if a single investor runs into money problems and the club suffer and mount up debt, the full assets of the club (ground, playing staff, Ralston etc) are all at risk
  • Current shareholders will surely feel disillusioned with it all (say I put £10k into the club a couple of years ago - I now have less say than someone paying £10 a month? Surely that is not right?). Most people who bought shares in the last 2 issues boought them not as an investment but to help fund the club when it badly needed money, the 48% shareholders will have no less say than they currently have as they are easily out-voted by the 52% majority
  • Decision making could be a long process as everyone needs to have their say and we are already talking about 3 different boards for what is effectively running a football club. One board will run the CIC, a seperate board will run the football club and the 3rd board will oversee the whole thing. If fans are effectively running the club then I think the executive board is a neccessity after all Dundee supporters had representation on their board before they went into administration
  • The whole model is untried (I'm not even sure this is a real consideration tbh as someone has to be the first to try anything)

The tried models have a large element risk also, Romanov, Boyle, Murray, Mileson, Melville, Johnstone, Massone and others have all tried and ran up unsustainable levels of debt and put their clubs at risk

To benefit from the advantages above, do we really need to go through as large, risky and complicated a scheme as being proposed by Richard Atkinson? Could discussions not take place with the selling consortium and current shareholders with a view to the following -

  • The articles of the club are altered whereby one individual cannot own more than - say - 5% of the club? This would therefore protect us against another Reg Brealey type scenario. Now I know the selling consortium would have to push this change through (and also agree to sell shares individually) however those individuals have regularly stated they want what's best for the club and IF the consensus was this was best, would they push the change through? They would probably have to be paid over a few years also. The last two general shares issues were both undersubscribed, who would underwrite them ? There would also be nothing that could stop a large enough consortiumg voting as a majority block
  • The same sort of "offers" as the CIC would offer could be replicated whereby businesses acquring £10k of shares get various perks. Individuals acquiring £3k of shares (or whatever value) could get perks too. This could be done but the current board don't seem to have considered it, plus I think the majority of ordinary fans would only be wiling to invest a few hundred punds at most into any buying shares.
  • Shareholders can then elect a board of directors to run the club. 1 Board made of of X number of people. Re-appointed on an annual basis. Directors have to act in the interest of shareholders therefore major issues could still be voted on by the ordinary shareholder.
  • No debt would be involved therefore any money paid into the club would not be lost to interest payments.
  • Shareholders/fans could simply pay money into the club if they wished on any scale.
  • Greater use of facilities and integration with the community is simply made to happen. This does not require a CIC set up. You would still require the proper people to be able to continually sell this.
  • Shareholder meetings held on a regular basis, say quarterly to discuss and vote on major issues.

As I have said above perhaps I am missing something and if so let me know. I am not against the CIC, I just think all avenues should be considered before we go down a particular route. Overall I see the above approach being a way of incurring the benefits without as many drawbacks.

The important thing to remember is that CIC and St Mirren football club will be seperate businesses although the CIC would hold the majority share of SMFC. By becoming a member of the CIC you are not investing directly in the club but contributing towards a business that seeks to utilise St Mirren Park and Ralston for community projects and pay SMFC for this, the clubs assets are then used on a much more regular basis than the club have currently been able to attract. The community members in particular would have much more reason to utilise the available facilities and as an example I was recently talking with someone who is a member of a community organisation that are considering joining and they would require use of the facilities maybe 3 or 4 times a week and would be paying for this and the club will get a share of that. The organisation will be able to fund it as their current premises have expensive maintenance charges on top of rents/rates for their current premises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Poz says, the outgoing board had plenty of opportunity to do this.

Maybe after years of unpaid toil and much unwarranted abuse, they simply couldn't be arsed and wanted out ASAP*.

I thought the guys post was good too.It shows that you don't have post against the CiC with ill disguised vitriol and rampant paranoia permeating your posts.

I also agree that if you're a major shareholder and part of the 48%, then you would be well pissed off.However, any takeover bid is rarely painless and it's inevitable there will be losers.Not that this makes it all right. We don't know what went on between the 52% consortium and GLS, so there may or may not be good reason for what they did, other than to maximise their returns, although that's a tad unlikely.

FWIW, if the 52% had accepted GLS bid, then I reckon there would be far more of a furore created on here than the CiC bid has caused#.That goes for any other outside investment too.

* They didn't want out ASAP. They wanted £2M for their shares and they want to stick around in some capacity even after these are sold - assuming the CIC can oblige.

# This is an interesting point. What makes you say this? If Gordon Scott's offer had been accepted, it is just possible that he might have been in a position, and willing, to invest something further in the club over and above the share purchase. I suspect this would have been welcomed by many who, like myself, would question the consortium's valuation of their shares. It could be argued that by holding out for 2 million quid, the consortium have effectively scuppered any potential short to medium term investment in the club.

ETA: on the original thread question, I can't think of any viable alternative at present, though I'm not entirely convinced that there wasn't one on the table previously.

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone is asking why current board haven't just went and built the bar, but no one really seems to care about the initial set up. According to RA the initial price of setting this bar up is a six-figure number, which is quite expensive. Maybe we can't really afford to spend the money without it damaging our club greatly.

Under the CIC ownership we've persuaded Kibble to do this (as part of the community) for free (I think?) and we can start reaping the benefits immediately.

Just an idea.

I agree with everyone talking about Gordon Scott, but there doesn't seem to be much way around this. There must have been a reason for what they've done? There's certainly little the CIC can do.

I wouldn't think Kibble are doing the work for free but probably at a reduced price with favourable payment terms and in return they will probably be a 'preferred bidder' for any future maintenace work required at St Mirren Park or Ralston.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was Gordon Scott in particular I would feel hard done by too. I think the forming of the consortium to ring fence their 52% was divisive, and I'd be hacked off if I had been investing in the club to a high level in the manner that some of the '48%' people had too. If 'Glasgow Buddie' has been investing in the club as you say, and has been frozen out, then I absolutely am on his side. With the CIC guaranteeing the '48%' representation in the new structure - perhaps someone like 'Glasgow Buddie' could put himself forward for election, and be able to 'come in from the cold' so to speak?

Good post and here is a green dot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't think Kibble are doing the work for free but probably at a reduced price with favourable payment terms and in return they will probably be a 'preferred bidder' for any future maintenace work required at St Mirren Park or Ralston.

CIC provide the materials and Kibble will fit it out for free, thats what Jim Mullan said at the meeting :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* They didn't want out ASAP. They wanted £2M for their shares and they want to stick around in some capacity even after these are sold - assuming the CIC can oblige.

# This is an interesting point. What makes you say this? If Gordon Scott's offer had been accepted, it is just possible that he might have been in a position, and willing, to invest something further in the club over and above the share purchase. I suspect this would have been welcomed by many who, like myself, would question the consortium's valuation of their shares. It could be argued that by holding out for 2 million quid, the consortium have effectively scuppered any potential short to medium term investment in the club.

Drew,

I think it's quite clear that the current board "gave up" in trying to move the club forward to any great extent.We've stagnated off the park in the past couple of years IMO, particularly with the facilities we now have at our disposal.They've continually said that they've had enough of playing the major role of running the club on a day to day basis.Nobody in their right mind is going to walk away from a project that they've invested numerours hours of their time unpaid, for lees than what they belive it's worth.

They may well stck around in some capacity but not to the same level that they have done and it would with the CiC in place, as I understand, be subject to them actually voted on.

If GLS' offer was accepted there may well have been many who welcomed it.However, there would have been many who didn't.Me for one and that's got nothing to with GLS himself, as I've met the man a couple of times and he seems a decent enough guy.

FWIW I think the board are quite correct to ask for £2 million,but that's my take on it.£2 millionj pound in today's terms is peanuts for a club, which is as well run as ours [see Big Feras' post]. If anyone had wanted our club enough, and had the funds and had a the club's best interests at heart i.e. sanctioned by the 52%, then they would have shelled out the money. That no one hasn't, speaks volumes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Drew,

I think it's quite clear that the current board "gave up" in trying to move the club forward to any great extent.We've stagnated off the park in the past couple of years IMO, particularly with the facilities we now have at our disposal.They've continually said that they've had enough of playing the major role of running the club on a day to day basis.Nobody in their right mind is going to walk away from a project that they've invested numerours hours of their time unpaid, for lees than what they belive it's worth.

They may well stck around in some capacity but not to the same level that they have done and it would with the CiC in place, as I understand, be subject to them actually voted on.

If GLS' offer was accepted there may well have been many who welcomed it.However, there would have been many who didn't.Me for one and that's got nothing to with GLS himself, as I've met the man a couple of times and he seems a decent enough guy.

FWIW I think the board are quite correct to ask for £2 million,but that's my take on it.£2 millionj pound in today's terms is peanuts for a club, which is as well run as ours [see Big Feras' post]. If anyone had wanted our club enough, and had the funds and had a the club's best interests at heart i.e. sanctioned by the 52%, then they would have shelled out the money. That no one hasn't, speaks volumes.

The value of anything is pretty much what someone is willing to pay for it. I think the fact that no-one has been willing to shell out £2M for the 52% of shares (remember, we're not talking about the club as an entire entity here) does indeed speak volumes, and suggests to me that the consortium have set an unrealistic figure. FFS, they must have thought that the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny all come calling at once when Richard Atkinson and his CIC came knocking! By setting their share price at £2M, the consortium have squeezed the life out of any realistic offer. If the CIC hadn't materialised, then I wonder how long they would have held out for this amount.

You've not really explained why you believe a furore would have kicked off had Gordon Scott's offer been accepted. He is a St Mirren supporter, has invested heavily in the club both in terms of his own money and a very significant amount of his personal time, and he is also a shrewd, successful business man. I'm not seeing too many grounds for apprehension in there TBH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the only other option is for the club to remain up for sale being run as it is now by the same people who failed to come up with any ideas on how to use the big empty spaces within a football ground. Which isn't a bad thing if your main aim is to restrict the air supply to something that needs to breathe. :rolleyes:

And your suggestions for the empty spaces are?

Edited by E=Mc2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...