Big Fras Posted May 17, 2011 Report Share Posted May 17, 2011 At the risk of being repetitive, why not ask the question in the Q&A thread where you will have more chance of getting a sensible / correct answer. I can vouch that this is correct. RA took the time to contact me and answer my queries. To be honest I don't think you can ask for much more than that as a supporter, and I'm pretty sure that Craig Whyte didn't have a team of suits answering RFC fans queries on FollowFollow. I am of the view that it is critical for the longevity of the CIC ownership that as many fans are involved as possible. If this means revised membership schemes in similar lines to what you see currently as gate concessions for for families, OAPs / unemployed etc., then so be it. The most important thing would be that the supporters had a serious financial "voice" on an ongoing basis. It would be too easy to pay lip service to 312 members as opposed to 1800. Also, having a larger number of fans on board could/would make the whole thing appeal more to future community/private investors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 The dissenters should now be pledging and ensuring they can defend the clubs interests from the inside. If they don't do that then their credibility as concerned supporters is in the shitter. I don't agree with that at all. I'm sure there will be many who will be concerned, have very valid points to raise and still decide to not join. It'll be for the CIC members to be mature about that and make themselves available for taking concerns etc forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Also, having a larger number of fans on board could/would make the whole thing appeal more to future community/private investors. Having a large International presence also opens things up, with regards to sponsorship and attracting investors, whilst also creating a potential scenario where the majority of members won't initially be Saint Mirren fans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 (edited) I don't agree with that at all. I'm sure there will be many who will be concerned, have very valid points to raise and still decide to not join. It'll be for the CIC members to be mature about that and make themselves available for taking concerns etc forward. Spot on. I posted this elsewhere: I've decided I won't be taking out a membership. To be honest, this isn't based on any particular view of the initiative in itself, but my own finances and where my personal priorities lie. As it is, I'll be picking and choosing the matches I go to next season as I did this season. When all is said and done, I'm only really interested in the football, and even that interest is pretty variable over time, so I'll employ discretion. This works for me, and ensures that I don't become a slave to my support of the club. Does that mean I'm a fair weather supporter? Perhaps, but I've got a decent track record of attending matches to support my team when the chips are down, so I don't really care what others might think. I've ploughed plenty of time, money, and tears into supporting Saints over the years, so I won't be answering to anyone as to why I won't be taking out a membership of the CIC or buying a season ticket. I hope everything works out, and I give credit to those who are willing to fork out a tenner a month to support the CIC. It's not for me, though. Edited May 18, 2011 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Not in any way trying to stir things but what is the £100k+ Richard has put into the club? No takers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 18, 2011 Report Share Posted May 18, 2011 Spot on. I posted this elsewhere: I've decided I won't be taking out a membership. To be honest, this isn't based on any particular view of the initiative in itself, but my own finances and where my personal priorities lie. As it is, I'll be picking and choosing the matches I go to next season as I did this season. When all is said and done, I'm only really interested in the football, and even that interest is pretty variable over time, so I'll employ discretion. This works for me, and ensures that I don't become a slave to my support of the club. Does that mean I'm a fair weather supporter? Perhaps, but I've got a decent track record of attending matches to support my team when the chips are down, so I don't really care what others might think. I've ploughed plenty of time, money, and tears into supporting Saints over the years, so I won't be answering to anyone as to why I won't be taking out a membership of the CIC or buying a season ticket. I hope everything works out, and I give credit to those who are willing to fork out a tenner a month to support the CIC. It's not for me, though. My comments were more on the context of serial CIC knockers like animal. One of the challenges for us is ensuring that the CIC does not become some exclusive tie wearing wankfest for old grammarian bottom feeders to mutually masterbate the credability of the CIC BoD out of existence. The more non-traditional creepy sausage roll thief CIC members we have the better....and the more chance we will have of delivering the type of club everyone wants and not just the "haves". With the membership pledges now up to 673 we must have a decent chance of getting a fairly representative support involved in CIC membership. However, we still need to find ways to ensure everybodies views are considered whether they are members or not. Every supporters perspective should be taken into consideration irrespective of their levels of disposable income. We should start thinking about the mechanisms to make this happen. Or tyrekickers can continue to whinge and weep from the sidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombi Buddie Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 Richard has in fact already put in a six figure sum into the CLUB, never mind the CIC. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of your childish tantrums. Bring on Yule Brynner, at least when you post as him you bring some humour to your nonsense. you, yourself have been somewhat economical with the facts turns out this "six figure sum" was not the investment you suggest. perhaps you didn't know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_the_saint Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 you, yourself have been somewhat economical with the facts turns out this "six figure sum" was not the investment you suggest. perhaps you didn't know? No-one said that loan is the only money put in the club by rea ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kombi Buddie Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 No-one said that loan is the only money put in the club by rea ;) Neither they did.! Furnish us with the evidence and i'll believe you, until then I'll consider any further statements of REA "six figure" financial investment as more whataboutery. but "six figure investment" "£100K loan" "tax rebate" & not a dicky bird about it until someone checked out companies house..........hmmmmmmmmmmm the sums are looking murkier and murkier. If it was presented as a 'chaps, here's the deal' up front, the needing/wanting to be convinced amongst us might have been satisfied but the lack of such info adds fuel to the fire. {Just my opinion mind} I remain convinced Div was talking tosh but convince me otherwise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted May 28, 2011 Report Share Posted May 28, 2011 Neither they did.! Furnish us with the evidence and i'll believe you, until then I'll consider any further statements of REA "six figure" financial investment as more whataboutery. but "six figure investment" "£100K loan" "tax rebate" & not a dicky bird about it until someone checked out companies house..........hmmmmmmmmmmm the sums are looking murkier and murkier. If it was presented as a 'chaps, here's the deal' up front, the needing/wanting to be convinced amongst us might have been satisfied but the lack of such info adds fuel to the fire. {Just my opinion mind} I remain convinced Div was talking tosh but convince me otherwise As things with the club stand at the moment, the people who should have let this short term loan be known are the selling consortium and the only people they have to tell are the shareholders and they only have to let the shareholders know by having this amount shown in the annual accounts. The deal had nothing to do with 10000 hours and was an agreement between two seperate companies and most likely subject to corporate confidentiality and I would be very surprised if REA didn't have to speak with the other directors before putting an explanation on here. How would you like it if your bank were to post a notice saying Kombi Buddie had to use his overdraft facility this month ? If this had been an agreement between SG's company and SMFC it would still have had a charge against it at companies house, but would it have been such a big deal ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 29, 2011 Report Share Posted May 29, 2011 Neither they did.! Furnish us with the evidence and i'll believe you, until then I'll consider any further statements of REA "six figure" financial investment as more whataboutery. but "six figure investment" "£100K loan" "tax rebate" & not a dicky bird about it until someone checked out companies house..........hmmmmmmmmmmm the sums are looking murkier and murkier. If it was presented as a 'chaps, here's the deal' up front, the needing/wanting to be convinced amongst us might have been satisfied but the lack of such info adds fuel to the fire. {Just my opinion mind} I remain convinced Div was talking tosh but convince me otherwise Guess what Kombi Buddie......if you support the CIC you will be supporting transparency at the club were members you vote onto the BoD will have a full insight into the workings of the club. You would also have a say in what happens in such matters. Under the current ownership model the current BoD can pretty much do what they want, sell the club to whoever they want, overspend as much as they like and run up massive debts if they fancy it. The rocks you are throwing actually make a very good case for supporting the CIC ownership model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reborn saint Posted May 29, 2011 Report Share Posted May 29, 2011 Guess what Kombi Buddie......if you support the CIC you will be supporting transparency at the club were members you vote onto the BoD will have a full insight into the workings of the club. You would also have a say in what happens in such matters. Under the current ownership model the current BoD can pretty much do what they want, sell the club to whoever they want, overspend as much as they like and run up massive debts if they fancy it. The rocks you are throwing actually make a very good case for supporting the CIC ownership model. No idea why this is on here but I welcome comments from people who support the cic but will not be taking part for fianancial reasons. They can come on board at a future time if i understand the workings of the cic under REA's leadership. Transparency IS what i require from this venture and i am convinced i will recieve it. I have supported St Mirren in some events like "Leaving love st afair" at the Normandy and booking a few corporate seats for games. I have no idea how this money was spent(to be fair not a lot) but i am convinced in future i will be able to see clearly where every penny goes. And as a Paisley buddie you know how we like to watch the pennies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animal Posted May 29, 2011 Report Share Posted May 29, 2011 Richard has in fact already put in a six figure sum into the CLUB, never mind the CIC. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of your childish tantrums. Bring on Yule Brynner, at least when you post as him you bring some humour to your nonsense. Was this "six figure sum" the loan we have all just found out about in the last few day by someone searching company records ? Did you know it was a loan ? If so did you just forget to mention the fact ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reborn saint Posted May 29, 2011 Report Share Posted May 29, 2011 Was this "six figure sum" the loan we have all just found out about in the last few day by someone searching company records ? Did you know it was a loan ? If so did you just forget to mention the fact ? For the sanity of us all .....go away.. It's all been answered! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 For the sanity of us all .....go away.. It's all been answered! Actually. It hasn't. The questions still remain as far as Div's revelation is concerned. Was the money he alluded to the £100,000 loan? If so, did he know it was a loan when making a statement in defence of RA and attempting to cast him in a better light? Was he just trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the dissenters within the camp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds10 Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) Richard has in fact already put in a six figure sum into the CLUB, never mind the CIC. Still, don't let the facts get in the way of your childish tantrums. Bring on Yule Brynner, at least when you post as him you bring some humour to your nonsense. Personally, I think Div made a mistake in writing about RA's investment in this post. And as it's now become the subject of an extensive debate I think he should withdraw or clarify his original post. That said, I don't believe for one minute it was his intention to mislead or deceive anyone as implied above. Edited May 30, 2011 by ds10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 (edited) Personally, I think Div made a mistake in writing about RA's investment in this post. And as it's now become the subject of an extensive debate I think he should withdraw or clarify his original post. That said, I don't believe for one minute it was his intention to mislead or deceive anyone as implied above. Hardly implied ds10. I merely asked if any of them represented his intentions. If not then Div can certainly explain what he did mean and what he did know....... If he so wishes. If not. Then surely it is still valid to ask the questions. Edited May 30, 2011 by stlucifer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds10 Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Hardly implied ds10. I merely asked if any of them represented his intentions. If not then Div can certainly explain what he did mean and what he did know....... If he so wishes. If not. Then surely it is still valid to ask the questions. Sorry Bud, didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I'm not doing very well today! Kind of looked like that on first glance. Point taken! Apologies… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Too much fuss about nothing in my opinion. I am more interested in what Richard Atkinson is and can bring to the club rather than whether he has put £100K into it or not. If the CIC was too fall apart REA has already done good things for the club. The £100K is a complete red herring. If he put it in great, if he didn't so what? Div may or may not know - again who cares. I think dwelling on the point contributes nothing to the debate and does our baldy webmeister an unmerited dis-service. Plenty other things to bam him up about. I suggest we park this and focus on the real debate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
animal Posted May 30, 2011 Report Share Posted May 30, 2011 Was this "six figure sum" the loan we have all just found out about in the last few day by someone searching company records ? Did you know it was a loan ? If so did you just forget to mention the fact ? Hello Div. Are you there ? Any chance of an answer to this ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_the_saint Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Hello Div. Are you there ? Any chance of an answer to this ? Does it matter? It doesn't affect anything to do with the cic. It doesn't matter if div was trying to present false statements as fact just to convince people to sign up (which I doubt he was). It doesn't matter if rea has invested or loaned money to the club. Everyone on here keeps saying they can make their own mind up about the cic without being convinced. Why don't you present a case for why the cic is a bad idea, as opposed to attacking the people around it. If the cic idea has holes in it then please tell us so we can make our own decisions based on the information - and try telling us without referring to any individuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds10 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 Does it matter? This is exactly right, it doesn't matter one way or the other. Not only is it irrelevant to the CIC takeover anyway, but Richard Atkinson has NEVER claimed to have invested this money in the club. (After all Div's opinion is his only, he's not a spokesman for 10000Hours. Maybe he made a mistake.) This issue is not important simply an irrelevant distraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 This is exactly right, it doesn't matter one way or the other. Not only is it irrelevant to the CIC takeover anyway, but Richard Atkinson has NEVER claimed to have invested this money in the club. (After all Div's opinion is his only, he's not a spokesman for 10000Hours. Maybe he made a mistake.) This issue is not important simply an irrelevant distraction. ...and this is an elephant infraction... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 McGraw has no dots left for today. McGraw thinks that is a shame as you clearly deserve a green dot for that post. McGraw is nodding his head in approval. I would love it if you really talked like that in real life. Your missus' life would be a hoot.... McGraw is home. McGraw wants his dinner. McGraw is nodding his head in approval - that mince was braw'. McGraw wants his nookie. McGraw is shaking his head in disgust - that wasn't supposed to happen so quickly. McGraw will consider your request for a divorce tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 31, 2011 Report Share Posted May 31, 2011 McGraw is shaking his head in disgust - that wasn't supposed to happen so quickly. McGraw will consider your request for a divorce tomorrow. You're thinking of Quick Draw McGraw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.