Volunteers Needed !

[Kombi Buddie]

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.

Sid, I aint throwing rocks.

Div appears to have made an unsubstantiated statement to dismiss whoever's argument/discussion/whatever it was, but hey, lets forget about it?? Because it doesn't suit. That's a nonsense.

As appens, I am not against the CiC but since day 1, i've maintained the stance that I want to satisfiy my concerns before I commit to signing up. That day is near I believe unless some nugget comes to light that makes me change my mind.

The rocks you are throwing actually make a very good case for supporting the CIC ownership model.

Happy to help

Edited May 31, 2011 by Kombi Buddie

[TsuMirren]

McGraw says......

That is what value McGraw places on your input.

McGraw dislikes those who ignore fellow St Mirren supporters only to post about them later on. McGraw considers that to be "queerhawk" behaviour.

WHAT?

[St. Sid]

McGraw says......

That is what value McGraw places on your input.

McGraw dislikes those who ignore fellow St Mirren supporters only to post about them later on. McGraw considers that to be "queerhawk" behaviour.

Fuxake......the aliases on here get weirder by the minute.

[animal]

Hello Div. Are you there ? Any chance of an answer to this ?

Hello Div are you there ? It's been quite a few days now - I'm still waiting. You were quick enough to tell me about Mr. A's six figure 'investment'. Did you not know it was a loan ?

[glenburn ed]

still no answer?

[St. Sid]

It's been a while since Red Dot McGraw and Yul Brynner have posted.....is it Brokeback Mountain time again.

[div]

Sorry, I didn't know I was being asked a question in this thread.

This is a thread asking about volunteers to hand out leaflets at a game that took place four weeks ago so it was not one I was actively reading !

I knew Richard had put a six figure sum into the club. That is exactly what I said, "into the club".

However I did not know it was a loan, no.

[steve_the_saint]

So now what Animal? Are you happy you got a bit of attention?

Now that Div as answered you did it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Are you now going to answer questions that people asking you?

[animal]

So now what Animal? Are you happy you got a bit of attention?

Now that Div as answered you did it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

Are you now going to answer questions that people asking you?

I am happy that the truth has finally come out.

Yes it does matter, because it makes it very clear that Div (and others) are not really aware of the current financial position but continue to encourage supporters to sign up.

I have always tried to make my position very clear - but here goes again.

My opposition to this scheme is fundamental. I am opposed to the use of some £2,000,000 of taxpayers cash to buy out the directors of a limited company, even one that I have supported for over 40 years. A number of the Club's supporters will be used to pay off the loan part of this scheme. I find this unacceptable. Some of them can ill afford to contribute.

I have another difficulty - in the use of Kibble's resources, including some very vulnerable children in this venture.

If this scheme comes to fruition, Mr. Atkinson some of his business colleagues will form the 'executive board' and will be able to run every aspect of the Club. The CIC board and the SMFC board will be virtually powerless. Mr. Atkinson and the executive board will control a £4,000,000 company without spending very much.

I hope this is clear enough for you.

Edited June 4, 2011 by animal

[div]

I hope this is clear enough for you.

Crystal.

I have a question for you.

Have you taken up the offer of addressing the audience at the next 10000Hours presentation with your concerns or the offer of a 1:1 meet with Richard to discuss your concerns ?

If not I have another question.

Why not ?

[div]

I am happy that the truth has finally come out.

Yes it does matter, because it makes it very clear that Div (and others) are not really aware of the current financial position but continue to encourage supporters to sign up.

The temporary loan of £100k to the club by Maxi Group to cover a cashflow problem has no relevance whatsoever to the proposed 10000Hours purchase of the majority shareholding of St.Mirren but to me it is nice to know that in future should we have issues that require temporary finance that we can perhaps use this facility again.

My opposition to this scheme is fundamental. I am opposed to the use of some £2,000,000 of taxpayers cash to buy out the directors of a limited company

The funds that are being used have been SPECIFICALLY created to assist community purchases of this type. If you feel bad about it then console yourself with the fact that £2m will be buying assets that cost over £10m to construct. It is good value and in any case it is not up to you to decide if it is a good use of the funds, it is up to the fund managers whose job it is to go through the required due diligence. If they are content with the business model then you have no cause to complain.

A number of the Club's supporters will be used to pay off the loan part of this scheme. I find this unacceptable. Some of them can ill afford to contribute.

If people can't afford to contribute then they won't and nor should they. I find it patronising in the extreme that you think people can't make the decision for themselves. 300 individuals represents under 10% of our average home support. That is all the group requires to fulfil the business model.

I have another difficulty - in the use of Kibble's resources, including some very vulnerable children in this venture.

Jesus Christ, can you seriously go any lower with this smear campaign ? Kibble are a £20m organisation, I think they will know what represents good value to their organisation and what does not. Again they do not need to take advice from you on how to conduct their business !

If this scheme comes to fruition, Mr. Atkinson some of his business colleagues will form the 'executive board' and will be able to run every aspect of the Club. The CIC board and the SMFC board will be virtually powerless. Mr. Atkinson and the executive board will control a £4,000,000 company without spending very much.

Virtually powerless ? They will be given a budget to work with which is determined by the Exec board. Aside from that caveat and the award of major contracts they will be able to run the club as they see fit. Do you seriously think the club should run without any compliance with a budget ? Aren't you supposed to be an accountant ?

[TsuMirren]

I have another difficulty - in the use of Kibble's resources, including some very vulnerable children in this venture.

You are an absolute disgrace. I'm sure they'd rather get work experience through the CIC than know they're the latest addition to your pathetic smear campaign.

[steve_the_saint]

I am happy that the truth has finally come out.

Yes it does matter, because it makes it very clear that Div (and others) are not really aware of the current financial position but continue to encourage supporters to sign up.

Well in that case I'm not really aware of the current financial position but continue to encourage to sign people up.

Div (web designer) only provides a platform for people to discuss the issues. Div (saints fan) discusses the issues like any other fan. There is nothing to be gained by him for encouraging people to sign up - he's already said he's not interested in a place on any of the boards.

And equally, you're not really aware of the current financial position but continue to discourage people to sign up. Hypocrisy?

I have always tried to make my position very clear - but here goes again.

My opposition to this scheme is fundamental. I am opposed to the use of some £2,000,000 of taxpayers cash to buy out the directors of a limited company, even one that I have supported for over 40 years. A number of the Club's supporters will be used to pay off the loan part of this scheme. I find this unacceptable. Some of them can ill afford to contribute.

So 2m of taxpayers money is being used is it? So does that mean you're unaware of the private funds that are used for these types of projects or are you conveniently neglecting to mention these?

Id be surprised if more than 30% of the funding was from the taxpayer. In fact you might even find that the 'loan' part of the funding is taxpayers money, in which case it's the fans money that is paying off the directors.

I have another difficulty - in the use of Kibble's resources, including some very vulnerable children in this venture.

That sounds very condescending to me.

These kids are people and need to be given the correct tools to live an adult life. This is nothing to do with the CIC, you obviously have a problem with the kibble and what it does. I'm guessing you have your own ideas on how to help these kids?

If this scheme comes to fruition, Mr. Atkinson some of his business colleagues will form the 'executive board' and will be able to run every aspect of the Club. The CIC board and the SMFC board will be virtually powerless. Mr. Atkinson and the executive board will control a £4,000,000 company without spending very much.

So after all the discussion and meetings you still don't undetstand how the Cic is going to work.

Amazing.

[bud77]

I am happy that the truth has finally come out.

Yes it does matter, because it makes it very clear that Div (and others) are not really aware of the current financial position but continue to encourage supporters to sign up.

I have always tried to make my position very clear - but here goes again.

My opposition to this scheme is fundamental. I am opposed to the use of some £2,000,000 of taxpayers cash to buy out the directors of a limited company, even one that I have supported for over 40 years. A number of the Club's supporters will be used to pay off the loan part of this scheme. I find this unacceptable. Some of them can ill afford to contribute.

I have another difficulty - in the use of Kibble's resources, including some very vulnerable children in this venture.

If this scheme comes to fruition, Mr. Atkinson some of his business colleagues will form the 'executive board' and will be able to run every aspect of the Club. The CIC board and the SMFC board will be virtually powerless. Mr. Atkinson and the executive board will control a £4,000,000 company without spending very much.

I hope this is clear enough for you.

As Div says the fund managers would have examined the buyout and if they didn't think it met the criteria for funding, the CIC wouldn't have progressed this far. I can afford to pay £10 a month, so I will but I would like to see some concessionary rates for students, unemployed, pensioners etc to make it as all inclusive as possible and also have a broader spectrum of the support involved. I don't mean this in a patronising tone, but it might also be possible to have unemployed members assisting some of the community members at times and prospective employers like to see this type of thing on a CV.

What is the difference between Kibble kids getting practical work experience at 10,000 hours or any other workplace ? The same rules, regulations and protection will apply so I don't see any problem with this.

Prospective members should start thinking seriously about the constitution and what could go wrong so safeguards can be written into the constitution from the outset. For instance, what happens if there is a serious difference of opinion between the executive board and the CIC board ? If the CIC fails some time in the future how can we best protect the club ? Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

[jimdickloyal]

This thread is a measure of the decrease in quality of this forum.

Why is anyone giving thie "animal" who is obviously an alias the time of day?

Why would any reasonable person still be remotely interested in people volunteering too hand out leaflets weeks ago!

Why do we allow these conversations to continue as the bile contained in them can only serve to damage the cic. People WILL use this forum as a point of reference from time to time.

[Kenny fae Partick']

The funds that are being used have been SPECIFICALLY created to assist community purchases of this type. If you feel bad about it then console yourself with the fact that £2m will be buying assets that cost over £10m to construct. It is good value and in any case it is not up to you to decide if it is a good use of the funds, it is up to the fund managers whose job it is to go through the required due diligence. If they are content with the business model then you have no cause to complain.

No. Respectfully I think you are completely wrong. The fund (The Scottish Investment Fund I believe is what you are referring too) to the best of my knowledge is set up for specific projects, facilities, equipment etc. As far as I can see it is not intended to be used to facilitate the takeover of a private company and to provide a pay off for shareholders/directors of such a company. Indeed I can see no precedent for this fund being used for this type of venture and I find it difficult to see how the use of taxpayers money could justified for this, particularly in these financially stringent times.

[div]

No. Respectfully I think you are completely wrong. The fund (The Scottish Investment Fund I believe is what you are referring too) to the best of my knowledge is set up for specific projects, facilities, equipment etc. As far as I can see it is not intended to be used to facilitate the takeover of a private company and to provide a pay off for shareholders/directors of such a company. Indeed I can see no precedent for this fund being used for this type of venture and I find it difficult to see how the use of taxpayers money could justified for this, particularly in these financially stringent times.

With respect, if it isn't intended for that use then why have they been engaged with 10000Hours for over a year discussing the funding application

Surely if it was as black and white ('scuse the pun) as you have outlined then the application wouldn't have made it past first base.

If Spartans can get £900k to help them build a community football stadium I don't see what is wrong with 10000Hours being given similar funding to help them gain control over a community asset that cost over £10m to build just three years ago.

[St. Sid]

I am starting to think that all the negative aliases are Terry Kelly.

There are a number of social investment organisations involved. The claim that £2M is taxpayers money is yet another hysterical overplay on the actual situation and yet again deflects from a half decent point of clarification. I really don't understand why posters can't just construct a reasonable question, ask it and wait for what have been perfectly reasonable answers.

The community benefits the CIC seem pretty obvious to most sane Buds. Some are of the opinion that couldn't care less so long as the club benefits; however it is a win-win for both parties. The communities will benefit as will SMFC.

The role of the social investors is to ensure that the investment delivers a social return, not a nice touchy feely one - but a real financial return on the investment. They have already done that. Attacking that element of the proposals is a fruitless tactic.

[Stuart Dickson]

No. Respectfully I think you are completely wrong. The fund (The Scottish Investment Fund I believe is what you are referring too) to the best of my knowledge is set up for specific projects, facilities, equipment etc. As far as I can see it is not intended to be used to facilitate the takeover of a private company and to provide a pay off for shareholders/directors of such a company. Indeed I can see no precedent for this fund being used for this type of venture and I find it difficult to see how the use of taxpayers money could justified for this, particularly in these financially stringent times.

Kenny

Like most other people I don't know where 10000hours have applied for funding but there are a number of private funders out there who are funding Social Enterprise Network projects and CIC's very much like the St Mirren one.

For example, there's 4ip, the Millennium Trust, the Big Lottery Fund, the Co-Operative Bank, the Adventure Capital Fund, amongst many others.

Infact this website lists most of the funders both from the private and public sector who exist to offer finance to the Third Sector - like the CIC - http://www.smartresources.org/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.fddnxpshdoogtdqt&pageId=311301

[Kenny fae Partick']

With respect, if it isn't intended for that use then why have they been engaged with 10000Hours for over a year discussing the funding application

Surely if it was as black and white ('scuse the pun) as you have outlined then the application wouldn't have made it past first base.

If Spartans can get £900k to help them build a community football stadium I don't see what is wrong with 10000Hours being given similar funding to help them gain control over a community asset that cost over £10m to build just three years ago.

I'm not saying its black and white and I am not saying a case cannot be made for the application. What I am saying is that IMO opnion there are difficulties with it. In my opinion the corelation with the criteria set out by the SIF is tenuous to say the least. in fact you make my point for me. The Spartans scheme seems clear in its proposals. objectives and outcomes. The CIC proposal as far as I can see has none of that other than a proposasl to buy a controlling interest in a private company.

I dont know what I would read into the fact that the application has been discussed for over a year. I dont know if thats par for the course or not. Myabe it could mean that its not straightforward and there could be problems with it. I couldnt say for certain.

You (and others) have obviously bought into this in a big way and I respect that. I havent. I see more pitfalls than a clear way forward for St Mirren. That is my opnion and is also deserving of respect.

[Kenny fae Partick']

Kenny

Like most other people I don't know where 10000hours have applied for funding but there are a number of private funders out there who are funding Social Enterprise Network projects and CIC's very much like the St Mirren one.

For example, there's 4ip, the Millennium Trust, the Big Lottery Fund, the Co-Operative Bank, the Adventure Capital Fund, amongst many others.

Infact this website lists most of the funders both from the private and public sector who exist to offer finance to the Third Sector - like the CIC - http://www.smartresources.org/index.cfm?fa=contentGeneric.fddnxpshdoogtdqt&pageId=311301

Indeed there may be a number of sources of potential funding. I was just highlighting potential problems with what seems to be a key source of funding.

[Stuart Dickson]

Indeed there may be a number of sources of potential funding. I was just highlighting potential problems with what seems to be a key source of funding.

Fair enough Kenny - I think I misunderstood the direction you were going in.

I don't know enough about the subject to either agree with you, or argue with you and you are certainly right that your opinion deserves respect. In my head I would have envisaged the purchase of St Mirren Ltd as the acquisition of a trading asset with the capacity to facilitate the aims of the parent CIC but I don't have the knowledge or the experience to know whether the acquistion of a private company with shareholders, some of whom will continue to hold shares, has any precedent or not.

[div]

The facts are that TTH are using 8 different funding routes to raise their £2m. A maximum of £1.2m of that will be repayable, £800k will be in the form of grants.

If TTH get all of that funding then it means as far as I am concerned that those 8 organisations are happy that they are investing or loaning money to a project that meets their criteria and that in the case of a loan that they are confident also of getting their money back.

As an aside there are additional funders whose criteria specifically don't allow for the buying out of shares from a private company who the CIC could only approach for funding post-takeover. Those funds could also potentially be used to help the CIC carry out specific initiatives once they have control.

[jimdickloyal]

The facts are that TTH are using 8 different funding routes to raise their £2m. A maximum of £1.2m of that will be repayable, £800k will be in the form of grants.

If TTH get all of that funding then it means as far as I am concerned that those 8 organisations are happy that they are investing or loaning money to a project that meets their criteria and that in the case of a loan that they are confident also of getting their money back.

As an aside there are additional funders whose criteria specifically don't allow for the buying out of shares from a private company who the CIC could only approach for funding post-takeover. Those funds could also potentially be used to help the CIC carry out specific initiatives once they have control.

DIV

This thread should have died some time ago. The current matter you are debating is WAY off at a tangent from the original point.

Stop replying to the mischief makers. This thread is probably doing more harm to the cic than good now.

[reborn saint]

DIV

This thread should have died some time ago. The current matter you are debating is WAY off at a tangent from the original point.

Stop replying to the mischief makers. This thread is probably doing more harm to the cic than good now.

Edited June 11, 2011 by reborn saint