Jump to content

The Forgotten 48%


bonzoboys
 Share

Recommended Posts

So what of the forgotten 48% of shareholders. So the consortium of 5 is going its merry way. No word yet from the board to keep them informed. I suppose it is always this way for minority shareholders but maybe things are changing. The 10000hours already promises one board position to the 48%, but on which board?

But who are the 48%. Aside from the few significant shareholders who have been excluded from the consortium, the vast majority are fans who have simply put money in to support the club over the years. People with a love for the team through good and bad times, knowing that they are never going to get a return. That sound familiar? Sounds very much like the same sort who RA thinks are likely to sign up for the membership scheme. Do the sums, 900 less 5 consortium, assume a reasonable percentage takes out membership that adds up to a big percentage of the 500 pledges, lot of voting rights, maybe worth 2 3 of members 5 seats on board. Maybe the silent 48% is going to get a reasonable voice in reality, far greater than the 1 seat promised by CIC.

Not sure how we judge this. Maybe Div can start a counter on the web page to allow the forgotten 48% to indicate that they are pledging.

Edited by bonzoboys
Link to comment
Share on other sites


So what of the forgotten 48% of shareholders. So the consortium of 5 is going it’s merry way. No word yet from the board to keep them informed. I suppose it is always this way for minority shareholders but maybe things are changing. The 10000hours already promises one board position to the 48%, but on which board?

But who are the 48%. Aside from the few significant shareholders who have been excluded from the consortium, the vast majority are fans who have simply put money in to support the club over the years. People with a love for the team through good and bad times, knowing that they are never going to get a return. That sound familiar? Sounds very much like the same sort who RA thinks are likely to sign up for the membership scheme. Do the sums, 900 less 5 consortium, assume a reasonable percentage takes out membership – that adds up to a big percentage of the 500 pledges, lot of voting rights, maybe worth 2 – 3 of members 5 seats on board. Maybe the silent 48% is going to get a reasonable voice in reality, far greater than the 1 seat promised by CIC.

Not sure how we judge this. Maybe Div can start a counter on the web page to allow the forgotten 48% to indicate that they are pledging.

The presentation showed that it was the St Mirren Ltd Board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone else watch that programme 'The 4400'. Increasingly, any time someone mentions 'The 48%' - I visualise the opening credits of the 4400, with a large group of St Mirren shareholders wandering around looking bewildered, and wondering just what the fcuk they've been doing, and where the fcuk they've been for the last 10 years.

If you did watch the 4400 - please back me up. If you didn't watch the 4400 - please lock me up. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the sums, 900 less 5 consortium, assume a reasonable percentage takes out membership – that adds up to a big percentage of the 500 pledges, lot of voting rights, maybe worth 2 – 3 of members 5 seats on board. Maybe the silent 48% is going to get a reasonable voice in reality, far greater than the 1 seat promised by CIC.

Currently how many seats on the board do the 48% have?

Answer = 1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've been promised at least one representative on the club board - the 48% are nothing to do with the cic (unless they are also becoming members).

And if I'm right in saying, it'll be up to the cic to decide if they should have more.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the rest of your post. it seems like you're assuming the majority of the cic members are going to be shareholders aswell? I doubt many of the shareholders have pledged, if I was a shareholder I'd be a bit miffed that the cic are having a say and I'm not. Maybe a lot of them are waiting till its up and running?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've been promised at least one representative on the club board - the 48% are nothing to do with the cic (unless they are also becoming members).

And if I'm right in saying, it'll be up to the cic to decide if they should have more.

I'm not really sure what you mean by the rest of your post. it seems like you're assuming the majority of the cic members are going to be shareholders aswell? I doubt many of the shareholders have pledged, if I was a shareholder I'd be a bit miffed that the cic are having a say and I'm not. Maybe a lot of them are waiting till its up and running?

I am a shareholder (a very modest shareholding) and am not miffed in any way whatsoever by the CIC or it's proposals, in fact I have pledged membership as an individual. My shareholding never gave me a true say in the running of the club with decisions always been taken at board level and in that respect I don't see that things have changed from that point of view. I am still happy to have my shares and carry on as normal, I didn't purchase them to have a say in running the club and I'm sure that's true of many of the 900.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a shareholder (a very modest shareholding) and am not miffed in any way whatsoever by the CIC or it's proposals, in fact I have pledged membership as an individual. My shareholding never gave me a true say in the running of the club with decisions always been taken at board level and in that respect I don't see that things have changed from that point of view. I am still happy to have my shares and carry on as normal, I didn't purchase them to have a say in running the club and I'm sure that's true of many of the 900.

What he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a shareholder (a very modest shareholding) and am not miffed in any way whatsoever by the CIC or it's proposals, in fact I have pledged membership as an individual. My shareholding never gave me a true say in the running of the club with decisions always been taken at board level and in that respect I don't see that things have changed from that point of view. I am still happy to have my shares and carry on as normal, I didn't purchase them to have a say in running the club and I'm sure that's true of many of the 900.

Pretty much goes for me also. I have a small number of shares and have already pledged membership to the CIC. I wouldn't say as a shareholder that I feel particularly left out by the CIC proposal.

If the shares had been sold to a private individual or group, I don't see how I would have been included in any way in that decision. And would probably not have been informed about it until I read it in the papers.

With the CIC proposal however, 10000Hours have gone to considerable lengths to keep everyone who is interested informed and to answer most of our questions. So my opinion would be that the remaining shareholders are probably better informed about the CIC proposal than they would have been about any other possible bid.

I am quite happy to support any initiative which I think is in the best interests of the club!

(As 10000Hours asked for that information when we signed up they can probably tell us how many shareholders have pledged.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a shareholder (a very modest shareholding) and although I have severe doubts about the CiC and whether it can deliver its promises I accept they have got the required community support to give it a go and wish them all the best. My shareholding never gave me a true say in the running of the club with decisions always been taken at board level and in that respect I don't see that things will change. I am still happy to have my shares and carry on as normal as I didn't purchase them to have a say in running the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to have a breakdown of who the other 48% of the club belongs to? I imagine a large % of that must be made by individuals, the "other two" being the obvious examples.

Also, can it be confirmed that none of that other 48% is owned by SG or any of the selling consortium. They are all selling ALL their shares?

I think both of these issues are quite important for those of us still deciding if the 52% CIC model could work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a shareholder; however remember way back at the first Q&A with SG that we all asked if there could be another share issue when SG explained the dire straits the club was in financially. At that point many of us were ready to throw more money in to try and save the club, not grow it...just try and keep it alive a little while longer whilst we tried to find another way to survive. No one thought for a second that there would be a return on that investment but no one cared we just wanted to put money into the club. There was an issue with one of the shareholders as they were blocking any further share issue as they wanted their shares sold first.

We now have a very different set of circumstances. I would still be prepared to buy shares if that was the offer. However what we are being offered is much more. Security for the future of the club, a say in the running of the club and growth for the club. Its the club I care about, not a worthless bit of paper with a number of shares printed on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a shareholder (a very modest shareholding) and am not miffed in any way whatsoever by the CIC or it's proposals, in fact I have pledged membership as an individual. My shareholding never gave me a true say in the running of the club with decisions always been taken at board level and in that respect I don't see that things have changed from that point of view. I am still happy to have my shares and carry on as normal, I didn't purchase them to have a say in running the club and I'm sure that's true of many of the 900.

In the same boat as you buddie and feel the exact same. However, I am sure the larger shareholders like gls and ken mcgeogh wont. They will effectively be seeing shares which were up til recently worth a couple hundred thousand pounds become almost worthless if this block sale of shares goes through.

I would be interested to know why they have isolated ken mcgeoch the way they have from the selling group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a shareholder (a very modest shareholding) and although I have severe doubts about the CiC and whether it can deliver its promises I accept they have got the required community support to give it a go and wish them all the best. My shareholding never gave me a true say in the running of the club with decisions always been taken at board level and in that respect I don't see that things will change. I am still happy to have my shares and carry on as normal as I didn't purchase them to have a say in running the club.

what's been said accounts for me too.

Edited by Kombi Buddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Talking of the 'forgotten 48%' - wasn't there a shareholders meeting tonight? No shareholders posted anything about what was said on the forum yet?

Was hijacked by a "whits in it fur you, you're no a sint murn supportur" type.

Richard did take time to namecheck your good self, and your legend boards though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at the meeting also. Wasn't really a lot said that wasn't presented at the last meeting.

Stewart Gilmour talked again about the SPL reconstruction basically saying that 10 was now dead in the water as the Old Firm are now realising that their fans don't want it either and that 14 is gathering a bit more support.

He said he may have been persuaded to vote for the 2x10 format if the SPL had increased the money for the second league to a higher amount.

As mentioned above the meeting was hijacked by 'John'. It did give both Richard Atkinson and Jim Mullan an opportunity to vigorously defend their position. Both spoke quite passionately about their belief in their involvement with the CIC/Club. Richard Atkinson said that now after working on this deal for a year and a half, he was definitely a St Mirren fan and in this for the long haul. Mullan also gave a much better explanation of how the Social Return on Investment could be calculated for the club.

There were quite a few at the meeting who had obviously not seen the website so weren't all that well informed. A number of questions were about if the members would be responsible for the CIC debt if it collapsed. RA said this was not the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, sounds like a bit of a development brewing on the '10 team SPL' front. Wonder what Dunfermline will vote for!?

Yorkston was against it when in the 1st division. Suspect he will change his tune. That should make any difference as the team going out were pro-10 team league. So long as the nutter at Killie stands his ground it shouldn't happen. Don't trust the flake at dimdee united or the dodgy builders at ICT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, sounds like a bit of a development brewing on the '10 team SPL' front. Wonder what Dunfermline will vote for!?

Stewart Gilmour said there was a lot of activity now on that front at the moment. He mentioned that there was an SPL meeting at the beginning of June about it, (not sure whether Dunfermline will officially be allowed to participate then). He also gave the impression that teams who were actively against 10, like Kilmarnock, but who had not previously been supporting any alternatives, have now switched to supporting 14. So 14 now seems more likely than 10. He also said that any changes would most likely not now come into effect until season 2013-14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stewart Gilmour said there was a lot of activity now on that front at the moment. He mentioned that there was an SPL meeting at the beginning of June about it, (not sure whether Dunfermline will officially be allowed to participate then). He also gave the impression that teams who were actively against 10, like Kilmarnock, but who had not previously been supporting any alternatives, have now switched to supporting 14. So 14 now seems more likely than 10. He also said that any changes would most likely not now come into effect until season 2013-14.

Has YulBrynner or any of his Posse been to any of the meetings, or was that 'John'? :wink:

I must say, after being at two meetings now I am even more impressed and optimistic about the whole CIC thing. It really does seem to me to be a genuine attempt to have St.Mirren owned by the fans.

RA stated that in a week or so (I think) a first meeting of the pledgers will be held where a constitution can be ratified and the first CIC Board appointed (on an interim basis and for around 6 months) until proper elections can be held. The initial board will consist of those who have been working on it so far e.g. RA, the KIBBLE works guy, a lawyer, Tony Fitzpatrick maybe more. I also imagine that the format and price of membership fees will be decided upon.

RA also stated that ALL money raised within the Club, including oversubscriptions to the membership would go towards the managers team budget... and something I am really pleased about... All profits from the members Bar will also go towards the team.

Edited by Vambo57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Has YulBrynner or any of his Posse been to any of the meetings, or was that 'John'? :wink:

I must say, after being at two meetings now I am even more impressed and optimistic about the whole CIC thing. It really does seem to me to be a genuine attempt to have St.Mirren owned by the fans.

RA stated that in a week or so (I think) a first meeting of the pledgers will be held where a constitution can be ratified and the first CIC Board appointed (on an interim basis and for around 6 months) until proper elections can be held. The initial board will consist of those who have been working on it so far e.g. RA, the KIBBLE works guy, a lawyer, Tony Fitzpatrick maybe more. I also imagine that the format and price of membership fees will be decided upon.

RA also stated that ALL money raised within the Club, including oversubscriptions to the membership would go towards the managers team budget... and something I am really pleased about... All profits from the members Bar will also go towards the team.

Aye i know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...