Your alternative option to the CIC

[Stu]

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

So what's in it for Kibble? I'm assuming they will be getting free corporate/community membership, but what else are they getting out of the deal? Must be something or they wouldn't be doing all the work for free!

[Guest somner9]

alternatives....

The BoD as described elsewhere are "Tired" and "want out"......

tough! you made a commitment and promises, you've done a good job up till now, but accepting the money of some supporters, taxpayers and extremist bowling clubs so the man who wants to style us on GCLFC, and his pal Kibbles can run an experiment and make a documentary about their good work, all at no risk to themselves is wrong!

man-up BoD, instead of taking more money from the fans, actually involve them in the running of the club, the revenue generating ideas don't need another company to come in and run, and pocket any profit. whats the commercial manager doing over and above "Curry Nights" and "player of the year" do's????

if he isn't he should be on a target related bonus scheme! give him a couple of bright young things to whiz round and drum up the business. if he doesn't or won't do it. then terminate his contract

if you put forward a business case for developing the void in the main stand for community as well as club use then it will be entitled to grants to finance the work. and the money will go straight into playing staff resources

if you want to sell your shares then make them more attractive, pick yourself up and get on with building the good foundations you strove to lay. don't take this easy, risk ladened, debt creative and Board OVERLOADED option. don't let the club become two peoples experiment for a tv show.

you did the hard part, now bring the fans in and work with them to crack on. now is the time for you to show leadership

[bud77]

alternatives....

The BoD as described elsewhere are "Tired" and "want out"......

tough! you made a commitment and promises, you've done a good job up till now, but accepting the money of some supporters, taxpayers and extremist bowling clubs so the man who wants to style us on GCLFC, and his pal Kibbles can run an experiment and make a documentary about their good work, all at no risk to themselves is wrong!

man-up BoD, instead of taking more money from the fans, actually involve them in the running of the club, the revenue generating ideas don't need another company to come in and run, and pocket any profit. whats the commercial manager doing over and above "Curry Nights" and "player of the year" do's????

if he isn't he should be on a target related bonus scheme! give him a couple of bright young things to whiz round and drum up the business. if he doesn't or won't do it. then terminate his contract

if you put forward a business case for developing the void in the main stand for community as well as club use then it will be entitled to grants to finance the work. and the money will go straight into playing staff resources

if you want to sell your shares then make them more attractive, pick yourself up and get on with building the good foundations you strove to lay. don't take this easy, risk ladened, debt creative and Board OVERLOADED option. don't let the club become two peoples experiment for a tv show.

you did the hard part, now bring the fans in and work with them to crack on. now is the time for you to show leadership

Yeah let's all march down to Greenhill Road and force the board to stay against their will, that will really get them working harder - not. They want to sell, there's sod all we can do about it - even if we wanted to.

Still it does make a change from the board must go.

[pozbaird]

Yeah let's all march down to Greenhill Road and force the board to stay against their will, that will really get them working harder - not. They want to sell, there's sod all we can do about it - even if we wanted to.

Still it does make a change from the board must go.

In the space of his last two posts, 'somner9' has put the boot into the existing board, the club's commercial manager, Richard Atkinson, and the 'Kibble man'.

I suspect if Bill Gates suddenly decided to become a Buddie, and pumped ten zillion into the club, somner9 would kick him in the nuts because Windows XP was a load of shite.

[FTOF]

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.

I disagree.I think it's fair.For and I say again, what is a financially well run SPL club with up to date facilities.

The potential furore?

I can't give specific details,because the take overbid didn't happen.However, I can, looking at take over bids at our club and others in the past, strongly suggest that the same amount of negativity would pervade the fan base as has done with the CiC.

It's just the nature of these situations.

With respect to your last sentence, IMO your view of the GLS situation is a bit simplistic.There are many factors that we have no inkling of, that could have complicated matters.As you know, what you see on the surface,isn't always the true picture of things.

It looks like you and I are never going to agree on this matter as you appear to see the CiC and matters connected to it, as a no go and I'm for it, although I have my reservations.However, the reservations I have are outweighed by the prospect another two or three years of the club going nowhere in its current state.

[TsuMirren]

I must say, I do wonder how many of the 900 shareholders have contacted the consortium to voice their opinions. There are no websites around giving the "real view" or whatever and it's not as if GS has made any sort of huge expose about it all...he also put his money elsewhere and will hopefully see a return from that.

Someone, posts and post and posts ago, stated that some of the 48% might have wanted to buy a controlling share. When was this going to happen exactly? The most vulnerable shares were Evelyn Purves, if what i'm told is true she wasn't happy at her husband for investing (again, just to qualify, that could be false), and from there you just need to get the rest of the 48% behind you and show the way forward after voting the 4, who rallied against RB, took out loans and mortgages to save the club, off of the Board at an AGM or even EGM.

[SuperSaintDave]

Have to agree with Santaponsasaint. Doubters must listen to what is being said at presentation and look the guys in the eye. Only hope that this weeks meeting is not swamped by talk of league reconstruction. I certainly dont want a top 10 again but see the CIC as giving fans a much bigger say. I would also think small scale shareholders will have a grater degree of influence than at present.

[TsuMirren]

I would also think small scale shareholders will have a grater degree of influence than at present.

Indeed, if you weren't buying shares purely out of love, receiving them as a gift or had then passed down then you can now "be at the table".

[Drew]

It looks like you and I are never going to agree on this matter as you appear to see the CiC and matters connected to it, as a no go and I'm for it, although I have my reservations.However, the reservations I have are outweighed by the prospect another two or three years of the club going nowhere in its current state.

When did I ever say that I believe the CIC to be a no go? This is a thread about alternatives, so it doesn't do any harm, presumably, to explore what other options might have been available. I was merely interested in your assertion that there would be a furore on here if Scott's bid had been accepted.

I've focussed on the position of the consortium, and haven't made any judgement call on the CIC on this thread. I have no reason to suspect that it won't work out, and, by Christ, I sincerely hope it does because, as things stand, it is the only show in town.

[St. Sid]

alternatives....

The BoD as described elsewhere are "Tired" and "want out"......

tough! you made a commitment and promises, you've done a good job up till now, but accepting the money of some supporters, taxpayers and extremist bowling clubs so the man who wants to style us on GCLFC, and his pal Kibbles can run an experiment and make a documentary about their good work, all at no risk to themselves is wrong!

man-up BoD, instead of taking more money from the fans, actually involve them in the running of the club, the revenue generating ideas don't need another company to come in and run, and pocket any profit. whats the commercial manager doing over and above "Curry Nights" and "player of the year" do's????

if he isn't he should be on a target related bonus scheme! give him a couple of bright young things to whiz round and drum up the business. if he doesn't or won't do it. then terminate his contract

if you put forward a business case for developing the void in the main stand for community as well as club use then it will be entitled to grants to finance the work. and the money will go straight into playing staff resources

if you want to sell your shares then make them more attractive, pick yourself up and get on with building the good foundations you strove to lay. don't take this easy, risk ladened, debt creative and Board OVERLOADED option. don't let the club become two peoples experiment for a tv show.

you did the hard part, now bring the fans in and work with them to crack on. now is the time for you to show leadership

Quite a big missing element to that plan. The tenner a month from the fans is not that big a deal in terms of additional investment into the club. The additional investment comes from the move to CIC status, which allows us to bring in more funding from sources not available to a traditionally owned club. Taking just the supporters bar project - 6-figure sum in capital investment, the current BoD does not have that money. It would take at least 5 years for the members payments to hit the capital target leaving nothing in the kitty for recurring costs such as staff, which is a problem at the moment for manning the corporate suite leaving it under utilised. It is the CIC status that will allow us to realise the development of the void space immediately - not only the capital investment required but it will also provide the staffing requirements and ultimately the profits that will go back into the club.

The current BoD don't just have a lack of ideas, they have nothing left to invest from a financial perspective even if they did have ideas.

[Guest somner9]

Quite a big missing element to that plan. The tenner a month from the fans is not that big a deal in terms of additional investment into the club. The additional investment comes from the move to CIC status, which allows us to bring in more funding from sources not available to a traditionally owned club. Taking just the supporters bar project - 6-figure sum in capital investment, the current BoD does not have that money. It would take at least 5 years for the members payments to hit the capital target leaving nothing in the kitty for recurring costs such as staff, which is a problem at the moment for manning the corporate suite leaving it under utilised. It is the CIC status that will allow us to realise the development of the void space immediately - not only the capital investment required but it will also provide the staffing requirements and ultimately the profits that will go back into the club.

The current BoD don't just have a lack of ideas, they have nothing left to invest from a financial perspective even if they did have ideas.

so the CiC money (£10k, £500, £10 a month) is going into the club? i thought it was actually someones idea to pay for 52% of the shares without any risk to themeslves???

you actually make acase above for not going with 10000 hours cockamamie proposal, by suggesting how hard it will be to achieve the aims thay have set out. (obviously set out using your money) are you suggesting even the demigod RA, Mr Kibbles et all with all their experience of NOT running a football club can't deliver what they promise???? but your still giving them access to your bank account (obviously their bank/financial position is confidential till after the pup is delivered)

,

the idea we need a nother company, two more boards, a shed load of debt (yes the Cic's debt but just try and get them to say they won't tap into the clubs turnover if they need to) and a TV documentary to fit out a bar, and sell the facilities is just not realistic. it can be done now without your cash!

it would seem on here afew are convinced this is not only THE option, but somehow if we don't mortgage the silverware (renfrewshire cup) NOw then it's oblivion. even though the CiC has openly said probably nothing in the way of new money for the club for at least two years (maybe) so why exactly would we be worse off next season with the same board? i think they've worked small miracles, and made us the envy of most of scottish football, this proposal puts all that at risk, but not RA or Mr Kibbles risk, now thats got to get you thinking?

[Guest somner9]

In the space of his last two posts, 'somner9' has put the boot into the existing board, the club's commercial manager, Richard Atkinson, and the 'Kibble man'.

I suspect if Bill Gates suddenly decided to become a Buddie, and pumped ten zillion into the club, somner9 would kick him in the nuts because Windows XP was a load of shite.

i think the current board have done a great job, and this is what i have said. will things be better with TWO more boards???? i've never seen it before.

and there we go with 10000 hours scaremongereing re all these "Sugar Daddy's" (bill gates etc) where are these guys desperate to throw money at SMFC???? is it possible that they don't actually exist?

we need the BoD to realise this is wrong, too much risk at everyone but the proposer's expense.

please consider if you sign up pay your £10 a month and find that the CiC can't meet its commitments down the line, will you vote to fold it, or vote to meet the shortfall by accessing SMFC turnover??? i know 10000 hours wont answer that!

[St. Sid]

so the CiC money (£10k, £500, £10 a month) is going into the club? i thought it was actually someones idea to pay for 52% of the shares without any risk to themeslves???

you actually make acase above for not going with 10000 hours cockamamie proposal, by suggesting how hard it will be to achieve the aims thay have set out. (obviously set out using your money) are you suggesting even the demigod RA, Mr Kibbles et all with all their experience of NOT running a football club can't deliver what they promise???? but your still giving them access to your bank account (obviously their bank/financial position is confidential till after the pup is delivered)

,

the idea we need a nother company, two more boards, a shed load of debt (yes the Cic's debt but just try and get them to say they won't tap into the clubs turnover if they need to) and a TV documentary to fit out a bar, and sell the facilities is just not realistic. it can be done now without your cash!

it would seem on here afew are convinced this is not only THE option, but somehow if we don't mortgage the silverware (renfrewshire cup) NOw then it's oblivion. even though the CiC has openly said probably nothing in the way of new money for the club for at least two years (maybe) so why exactly would we be worse off next season with the same board? i think they've worked small miracles, and made us the envy of most of scottish football, this proposal puts all that at risk, but not RA or Mr Kibbles risk, now thats got to get you thinking?

Nope, I am suggesting that you have failed to grasp what the CIC is actually about. That is not a criticism. However you are clearly as fik as f"k - which is an insult.

The beauty of the CIC is that it opens up new funding streams to "us". The "us" is critical here. The separation of the club from the CIC is critical in terms of the asset lock. However, the ultimate aim of this is to create a club for "us". At the risk of exploding your brain, you need to start thinking of the "us" as a holy trinity. Yes there's are the three specific elements, but essentially they equate to a single "us".

The "us" delivers protection for the assets and the operations of St Mirren Football club. The "us" delivers the majority shareholding to "us" so that we can run the club the way we want it to be run. The "us" changes our status from being a privately own club to being a community owned club. Yes the initial funding is being used to deliver the 52% majority shareholding. However, it also means the "us" can continue to draw in additional investment for community projects beyond the initial share purchase as "us" becomes a community interest company.

This is all about "us", the St Mirren community no longer sitting outside of the club depending on the finances of individuals or their ability to raise funds through the banks. This is about "us", the St Mirren community becoming the club operating it from the inside. Because we change the identity of the club from a personal investment by a few for profit - which is how company legislation views it...we become recognised as what we really are a community football club; that exists to serve the desires of those interested in our local football team. That attracts a very different view from company legislation and with it access to monies not currently available to us for all sorts of projects that will be good for St Mirren, its supporters and the wider community that decides to join "us".

You really should get yourself along to a meeting and try taking an open mind along for company. Once it sinks in I suspect you will become one of the CIC's greatest supporters.

[bud77]

i think the current board have done a great job, and this is what i have said. will things be better with TWO more boards???? i've never seen it before.

and there we go with 10000 hours scaremongereing re all these "Sugar Daddy's" (bill gates etc) where are these guys desperate to throw money at SMFC???? is it possible that they don't actually exist?

we need the BoD to realise this is wrong, too much risk at everyone but the proposer's expense.

please consider if you sign up pay your £10 a month and find that the CiC can't meet its commitments down the line, will you vote to fold it, or vote to meet the shortfall by accessing SMFC turnover??? i know 10000 hours wont answer that!

Let me say this in simple terms, if the CIC fail and try to access SMFC's assets then they will have to go and sit on the naughty step for a very long time as it will be illegal due to the asset lock and funds generated by SMFC are their assets not the CIC's.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

How much is Craig Whyte set to pay for r*ngers? £6m to David Murray + £20+m to Lloyds Bank + £10m into the player budget for the summer and with the HMRC case pending which could see r*ngers asked to pay anywhere between £20m - 60m if they lose the case.

£2m to buy 52% of a debt free St Mirren in the SPL... bargain!

[saintargyll]

is it possible for the match day bar be staffed with volenteers who could be given a match day ticket as the bar wont be open at game time?

[BLF]

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?

Lets not forget GLS could very easily be the representative from the 48% or indeed could become a member of the CIC and become an SMFC board member that way. I believe if he joins the CIC he will be encouraged by the saints fans to stand and I think (hope) he could yet be our chairman.

[kenbud]

is it possible for the match day bar be staffed with volenteers who could be given a match day ticket as the bar wont be open at game time?

It may be possible depending on legislation and licensing laws, bowling clubs and social clubs somtimes do it for busy functions. so i dont see why the CiC couldnt do it

[pozbaird]

Lets not forget GLS could very easily be the representative from the 48% or indeed could become a member of the CIC and become an SMFC board member that way. I believe if he joins the CIC he will be encouraged by the saints fans to stand and I think (hope) he could yet be our chairman.

Having Gordon Scott involved again at the club, at a high level, working with people like Richard Atkinson, the team who are setting up 10000hours, possibly Mr Gilmour for continuity, and whoever puts themselves forward from the support for election, is an appealing prospect. A very strong cross-section of skills, enthusiasm, and expertise. IMHO.

However, I seriously have my doubts that GLS wants to get involved... at this juncture anyway.

[Guest somner9]

now these really are grounds for a proposal "From the People, By the People"!

you don't need THREE boards, TWO companies and all the membership money going on loan repayments. then again any one or few individuals don't get to boss over it either!

A cooperative (also co-operative; often referred to as a co-op) is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit.[1] Cooperatives are defined by the International Cooperative Alliance's Statement on the Cooperative Identity as autonomous associations of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprises.[2] A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or by the people who work there

what does it stand for?

Identity

Cooperatives are based on the cooperative values of "self-help, self-responsibility, democracy and equality, equity and solidarity" and the seven cooperative principles.

1. Voluntary and Open Membership

2. Democratic Member Control

3. Member Economic Participation

4. Autonomy and Independence

5. Education, Training and Information

6. Cooperation among Cooperatives

7. Concern for Community[14]

In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others. Such legal entities have a range of unique social characteristics. Membership is open, meaning that anyone who satisfies certain non-discriminatory conditions may join. Economic benefits are distributed proportionally according to each member's level of participation in the cooperative, for instance by a dividend on sales or purchases, rather than divided according to capital invested

how is it run?

A consumers' cooperative is a business owned by its customers. Employees can also generally become members. Members vote on major decisions and elect the board of directors from amongst their own number. The first of these was set up in 1844 in the North-West of England by 28 weavers who wanted to sell food at a lower price than the local shops. A well known example in the United States is the REI (Recreational Equipment Incorporated) co-op, and in Canada: Mountain Equipment Co-op.

is it successful?

The world's largest consumers' cooperative is the Co-operative Group in the United Kingdom, which offers a variety of retail and financial services. The UK also has a number of autonomous consumers' cooperative societies, such as the East of England Co-operative Society and Midcounties Co-operative. In fact, the Co-operative Group is something of a hybrid, having both corporate members (mostly other consumers' cooperatives, as a result of its origins as a wholesale society), and individual retail consumer members.

so there's over a 160 years of expertise and knowledge available locally to draw upon, the money you put in is an investment!!! not to pay off the outgoing board members, the board are voted in by the members, you only need ONE board, and elections are each year

there are a plethora of funding routes open to Co-ops, and given that "The Co-operative Group" pulled in £13.7billion!!! last year i would suggest the opportunities for sponsorship are very good for the UK's first fully fledged "Co-operative" professional football club

if you want to live a dream, actually run the club you love, involve the community and see the benefits come "FIRST HAND" straight back into the club and community then this is the vehicle to take SMFC forward.

of course it might not be everyones cup of tea, some may prefer the three board, two company, all your fees go on servicing the debt rather than an INVESTMENT in the club type approach? different strokes and all that

[Stuart Dickson]

Somner, very noble but you don't say how you would raise the money required to buy out the current shareholders.

[bingboy]

now these really are grounds for a proposal "From the People, By the People"!

you don't need THREE boards, TWO companies and all the membership money going on loan repayments. then again any one or few individuals don't get to boss over it either!

A cooperative (also co-operative; often referred to as a co-op) is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit.[1] Cooperatives are defined by the International Cooperative Alliance's Statement on the Cooperative Identity as autonomous associations of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprises.[2] A cooperative may also be defined as a business owned and controlled equally by the people who use its services or by the people who work there

what does it stand for?

Identity

Cooperatives are based on the cooperative values of "self-help, self-responsibility, democracy and equality, equity and solidarity" and the seven cooperative principles.

1. Voluntary and Open Membership

2. Democratic Member Control

3. Member Economic Participation

4. Autonomy and Independence

5. Education, Training and Information

6. Cooperation among Cooperatives

7. Concern for Community[14]

In the tradition of their founders, cooperative members believe in the ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others. Such legal entities have a range of unique social characteristics. Membership is open, meaning that anyone who satisfies certain non-discriminatory conditions may join. Economic benefits are distributed proportionally according to each member's level of participation in the cooperative, for instance by a dividend on sales or purchases, rather than divided according to capital invested

how is it run?

A consumers' cooperative is a business owned by its customers. Employees can also generally become members. Members vote on major decisions and elect the board of directors from amongst their own number. The first of these was set up in 1844 in the North-West of England by 28 weavers who wanted to sell food at a lower price than the local shops. A well known example in the United States is the REI (Recreational Equipment Incorporated) co-op, and in Canada: Mountain Equipment Co-op.

is it successful?

The world's largest consumers' cooperative is the Co-operative Group in the United Kingdom, which offers a variety of retail and financial services. The UK also has a number of autonomous consumers' cooperative societies, such as the East of England Co-operative Society and Midcounties Co-operative. In fact, the Co-operative Group is something of a hybrid, having both corporate members (mostly other consumers' cooperatives, as a result of its origins as a wholesale society), and individual retail consumer members.

so there's over a 160 years of expertise and knowledge available locally to draw upon, the money you put in is an investment!!! not to pay off the outgoing board members, the board are voted in by the members, you only need ONE board, and elections are each year

there are a plethora of funding routes open to Co-ops, and given that "The Co-operative Group" pulled in £13.7billion!!! last year i would suggest the opportunities for sponsorship are very good for the UK's first fully fledged "Co-operative" professional football club

if you want to live a dream, actually run the club you love, involve the community and see the benefits come "FIRST HAND" straight back into the club and community then this is the vehicle to take SMFC forward.

of course it might not be everyones cup of tea, some may prefer the three board, two company, all your fees go on servicing the debt rather than an INVESTMENT in the club type approach? different strokes and all that

Set one up then and tell the BOD to stop the sale to the CIC. You've presumably got the funding in place as part of a sound business plan?

[TsuMirren]

Economic benefits are distributed proportionally according to each member's level of participation in the cooperative, for instance by a dividend on sales or purchases, rather than divided according to capital invested

So, you're stating funds should be directed away from the club.

Good luck with that one!

[Guest somner9]

Somner, very noble but you don't say how you would raise the money required to buy out the current shareholders.

thats the easy part it could be either but not limited to one of these two options:

1 - much of the funding being accessed by 10000 hours would be available to a co-operative, in addition to the monies put in by the membership, same principle as 10000 hours loans that need to be paid back are over the agreed term, social inclusion targets met reduce amount of loan to be paid back, grants (money that doesn't have to be paid back is much bigger and varied compared to that available to a CiC) availble for a number of criteria

2 - the current BoD, the 52% selling consortium and the other 48% shareholders could elect not to sell their shares, but swap them, or part sell/swap them for investment in the co-operative. this would have to be limited to ensure no one individual has too great an investment (so no money or a much reduced amount changes hands)

sorry another one is

3 - the BoD the selling 52% that is agree to being paid back over an agreed period. the 48% others can stay on have their shares transferred and actually have one person,one vote!!! (a time limit would be set relating to when reserves are in place before shares could be cashed in, but by then they might want to keep em)

the upshot of the above is that monies raised by membership, increased turnover etc goes straight into the co-operative known as "SMFC 1877" or indeed "SMFC 2011" bit more catchy than that power management speak title currently being floated dont you think

the important thing is that all this is done, suggested, debated and actioned by the supporters, community, businesses. anyone that wants to get involved can! to quote a phrase from School of Rock: "you don't have to be IN the Band to be IN the Band".... so if you're an OAP. or a student, housewife (hardest job in the world) or a supporter you can invest in something that really does benefit the FOOTBALL club, the comunity and each and every man, woman and child involved. not just the fortunate contractor getting a six figure contract/and or perks to fit out a bar!

the possibilties are endless!

edit i replied in the wrong post to:

plus your football teams would be an integral part of the club, as would all associated community groups, but obviously from the core activity perspective a proper affilitaion scheme would be set up to put the club at the heart of youth football across scotland, with many further opportunities for expanding the network of contacts across the uk and europe. imagine instead of fighting to get the slightest bit of recognition for the work voluntarily undertaken by you and countless others, you really had a say in how it would all be set up

the club as the hub, and yes ok with a pub

Edited April 28, 2011 by somner9

[Guest somner9]

Set one up then and tell the BOD to stop the sale to the CIC. You've presumably got the funding in place as part of a sound business plan?

see the above post for some suggestion as to how it could be instigated, given it took 10000 hours a year to come up with their detailed plan which we still haven't seen then perhaps you could allow a little more time. oh and the main point to remember is that the "Plan" would be drawn up by the "people" who have genuine interest in the club (not a group of non buddies, non football, still all not known business people)

it would start with the support, the community.... not a group of non associated businessmen or the muslim womens indoor bowling club!