Jump to content

Shareholders Not Joining the CIC


St. Sid
 Share

Recommended Posts


Damn right they are and the benefits to St Mirren are potentially enormous too.

Months ago on here I tried to outline what my idea of what this should be and I cited the example of having 10 SFA Quality Mark football clubs from across the central belt as community members would be. Now I admit I was thinking market stall whilst Richard Atkinson is thinking about a national chain of supermarkets but the example is relevant on a small scale.

What I said back then was consider the set up. Lets say each of those 10 clubs have 10 teams each. In each team they'll have squads of approx 20 players (2,000 players in total), and to be quality marked they need at least one SFA Qualified level 2 or 3 coach per side and one SFA Qualified level 1 coach (200 qualified coaches in total)

Now as a small example consider St Mirren's kit deal. This year I would imagine that Provan Sports would have sold the equivelent of 2,000 kit units. Bundle in the kit order for each of those 10 clubs that are in partnership with you and you've doubled the size of the order - which gives you a bit more power to negotiate better volume discounts, or more up front money. The community club gets good quality kit and cheaper prices, and St Mirren get to increase their profit margin on a club consumable.

On top of that you've got 200 qualified coaches spread across Ayrshire, Renfrewshire, Glasgow, Dunbartonshire, Lanarkshire, West Lothian and maybe even further afield all of whom are watching football in their age groups every single week and who know their best players, and their oppositions best players. So that's your scouting network taken care of, Oh and if you fancy it there's also the potential for a St Mirren Football Academy in every major town throughout the central belt using those 200 coaches from the 10 clubs and the St Mirren branding to bring in income that can be shared between the juvenile club and St Mirren.

Going back the way St Mirren always have players going through their coaching certificates who are lacking in practical experience - yet in this model you've got 100 teams across a number of regions where your players can go out and gain practical coaching experience.

Want to boost the size of the crowd, well you've got 2,000 players there that you can give free tickets to on the proviso they bring a paying adult - you can even make the adult ticket a discounted one the reality is that these are going to be people who wouldn't be at your match but who are now filling empty seats, buying programmes, merchandising and catering.

Sportsmans Dinners? The juvenille clubs tap into Campbell Kennedy's experience and contacts. Donate raffle prizes and auction items and let them use the function suite at Greenhill Road. It doesn't matter if you charge because you've got profit from the catering and from the alcohol sales and your partnership club heads home with next years kit fully paid for.

Sponsorship? Would a sponsor pay more to put their name on the strips of one SPL club and 2,000 replica kits, or for one SPL club, 2,000 replica kits, and 100 teams of 20 players playing in different leagues right across the country?

Again for the juvenile club what about tapping into the experience and knowledge of the guys at the CIC? Are there new revenue streams? How can they target their local councils? Where are there grants and loans availble to help them get their own 3g pitch in their own community?

And so on. The number of mutual benefits that could be exploited by both sides are absolutely enormous and that's before you look at the hockey, rugby, athletics, cricket, boxing, basketball, and god knows how many other sports clubs that are being targetted, or the church groups, and various charities that are being brought in as well.

Yet despite all that potential the evidence here is that the vast majority of St Mirren fans are stuck debating whether or not the club bar should profit the club or the CIC and we've got people who claim to be passionate St Mirren supporters complaining the scheme's of no interest to them because their tenner won't go directly to the pocket of the next injury prone workshy striker who might bag them 4 goals a season in the SPL. :blink:

Thanks for that smile.gif

I feel like I've been reading nothing but legal small-print when people start posting about "forgotten 48%" and the like, so its nice to read what it would mean from someone who, clearly, knows about this kind of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that smile.gif

I feel like I've been reading nothing but legal small-print when people start posting about "forgotten 48%" and the like, so its nice to read what it would mean from someone who, clearly, knows about this kind of thing.

Shrares without controling majority are worthless. c*ltic fans bought into Ferus Mcann's share issue in a far bigger way. Whether they wanted to support the club or had an idea of making money is imaterial, the shares are worth nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that smile.gif

I feel like I've been reading nothing but legal small-print when people start posting about "forgotten 48%" and the like, so its nice to read what it would mean from someone who, clearly, knows about this kind of thing.

Nah Ross, it's not what it WOULD mean. It's just a small example of what it COULD mean. It could just as easily be the kind of Ebbsfleet with lessons learned type idea that TsuMirren talks about or something completely different again. At this stage it's a bit of a blank page that will be written by those who are elected to the posts within the CIC and on the football club board. The problem for me is when I look around I don't see an abundance of candidates with ability, and I see an electorate who can't even grasp the basics of the potential on offer and who are struggling to get past the extremely minor issue of what lager will be sold in the bar, what colour the walls will be painted, and how the bar profits - if there are any - will be distrubuted.

Consider the case of SMiSA. I took our a membership at the start. I did so because the intentions seemed sound. Seek representation for the fans on the football club board by raising the money to buy enough shares to get themselves a place on the board. A simple idea using a model that had already worked at other clubs. Unfortunately the focus was lacking and before you knew it they were polling members on whether to use the funds raised to buy towels and t-shirts for the football team. Unfair? Possibly. The office bearers were elected because of their passion and committment to the club, and they were elected by a membership who thought that was important. It's just that at the end of the day SMiSA failed miserably to achieve their goal and after 10 years they still haven't got a place on the board.

Now we're talking about something potentially much, much bigger, yet the same office bearers are likely to put themselves forward as candidates for election to the CIC and the electorate is made up of exactly the same kind of people who will believe being a vocal and high profile St Mirren supporter is more important than electing someone with the ideas, credentials and ability to maximise the potential. I'd love to see this succeed, I'm just becoming less confident that it actually will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah Ross, it's not what it WOULD mean. It's just a small example of what it COULD mean. It could just as easily be the kind of Ebbsfleet with lessons learned type idea that TsuMirren talks about or something completely different again. At this stage it's a bit of a blank page that will be written by those who are elected to the posts within the CIC and on the football club board. The problem for me is when I look around I don't see an abundance of candidates with ability, and I see an electorate who can't even grasp the basics of the potential on offer and who are struggling to get past the extremely minor issue of what lager will be sold in the bar, what colour the walls will be painted, and how the bar profits - if there are any - will be distrubuted.

Consider the case of SMiSA. I took our a membership at the start. I did so because the intentions seemed sound. Seek representation for the fans on the football club board by raising the money to buy enough shares to get themselves a place on the board. A simple idea using a model that had already worked at other clubs. Unfortunately the focus was lacking and before you knew it they were polling members on whether to use the funds raised to buy towels and t-shirts for the football team. Unfair? Possibly. The office bearers were elected because of their passion and committment to the club, and they were elected by a membership who thought that was important. It's just that at the end of the day SMiSA failed miserably to achieve their goal and after 10 years they still haven't got a place on the board.

Now we're talking about something potentially much, much bigger, yet the same office bearers are likely to put themselves forward as candidates for election to the CIC and the electorate is made up of exactly the same kind of people who will believe being a vocal and high profile St Mirren supporter is more important than electing someone with the ideas, credentials and ability to maximise the potential. I'd love to see this succeed, I'm just becoming less confident that it actually will.

How much was your cup final ticket..............?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good value for two seats, lardarse.................

Stuart has actually came on here and made some very valid points.My opinion is on him is changing and maybe just maybe he will turn out to be a valuable member of the CIC.Cut him some slack.I do believe he is a Saints fan at heart but we always knew that didnt we.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart has actually came on here and made some very valid points.My opinion is on him is changing and maybe just maybe he will turn out to be a valuable member of the CIC.Cut him some slack.I do believe he is a Saints fan at heart but we always knew that didnt we.

I agree, always liked Lawstud, until he got bitten by a radiioactive gusset and tranformed in the abomination that was lawfud. Like a few others if they could move on from their personal issues with specific people at the club and realise that this is a new opportunity for the club they could prove valuable CIC members - and I think Lawstud is getting there.

People need to focus on what the CIC could mean for the club and put the past and personal considerations to the side. At the very minimum, Richard and the CIC guys, have earned a right to crack on with their process to bring us to a point when the pledgers will sit down to work on the fine detail of the constitution, etc. It could be there are some massive show stoppers at that point. We should all keep an open mind, but at the moment I think we have all heard enough to offer RA and the team our support in progressing - as has been evidenced by the 674 pledges. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart has actually came on here and made some very valid points.My opinion is on him is changing and maybe just maybe he will turn out to be a valuable member of the CIC.Cut him some slack.I do believe he is a Saints fan at heart but we always knew that didnt we.

Don't you start with your abusive comments and petty name calling. I'm no St Mirren fan. :wink:

In all honesty I hope 10000 hours get this through and that the people who are elected onto the various boards have the ability to make this all it really could be. The problem, and I see it as a very real threat, is that because the ordinary St Mirren fan has signed up to this without completely understanding it a situation will develop very quickly indeed is that expectations won't be met. If most are left, like Vambo, thinking that somehow this is going to lead to an injection of capital into the playing budget before August the disappointment and anger could distroy the project before it gets off the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of a pint each week is not the problem, the problem is somebody different from the safe hands of the existing board ( who have ran out of time) who have fail in my view to show 52% of the club is worth 2 million of other peoples money. If Gilmour and crew can't sell for what they want, they should do what house owners do, cut the asking price or stay where they are.

this is my big concern, the shareholding is never worth that kind of money. it's not even worth the residue of debt once the grants are in place, and what happens if all of that money is not forthcoming?

I reckon that the concept of only 300 members required is very precarious. If we have two rotten seasons on the park how many will say "stuff it". Quite a feckin few in my opinion.

And as for the school of thought that says we will be in exactly the same position if the CIC fails as we are in now, let me just point out that an administrator will be mostly concerned with getting the best deal for the major creditors and wont care a jot about the character of any bidders once the colour of their money is seen.

If the intial investment was at the market rate then I'd say that would be around £500,000 well spent and where do i sign, but 1.2 mil? I just dont see it working.

Edited by spirit of 77
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah Ross, it's not what it WOULD mean. It's just a small example of what it COULD mean. It could just as easily be the kind of Ebbsfleet with lessons learned type idea that TsuMirren talks about or something completely different again.

It's certainly got all the potential of what Ebbsfleet should have been and it doesn't even need to be saddled with the gimmick of Pick The Team. Luckily the club are already picking up the notion of developing the brand outwith Scotland and that's something that can be expanded upon. What's to stop Saints or 10000 Hours football camps in other countries and even taking things back a bit from there what's to stop getting sponsorship for match footage available to International members?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly got all the potential of what Ebbsfleet should have been and it doesn't even need to be saddled with the gimmick of Pick The Team. Luckily the club are already picking up the notion of developing the brand outwith Scotland and that's something that can be expanded upon. What's to stop Saints or 10000 Hours football camps in other countries and even taking things back a bit from there what's to stop getting sponsorship for match footage available to International members?

Kenny, what should Ebbsfleet have been though? That's what I've never understood. I followed the set up of MyFC and MyScotFC for a bit just out of interest but in the end I couldn't see the attraction of paying money in to a football club in return for being called upon to vote on whether or not to accept Brechin City's fifth increased bid on transfer deadline day - having moved just £50 - for your third choice Under 19's right back, or being called to vote on what laundry the club should use to wash the club kit after the big match on Saturday.

I can imagine that some people would be hugely interested in the intimate goings on of a football club, but I had a quick look around and it appears that MyFC struggled to get 20% turnout to vote on even the most important issues at the club. On the vote for the gimmick that you talk about - the pick the team one - turnout was less than 0.8%. Then there was the discussions on the forum where any sort of dissenting member risked being silenced by moderators who would ban dissenters to - it seems - protect their own interests. And ofcourse there was the other issue of members being able to set wage budgets at the club for a period that would be longer than the period of their membership meaning the club could be saddled with a huge bill at a time when the membership decides that actually they don't want to renew.

A genuine question Kenny but is there actually something good that can be stripped from the model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenny, what should Ebbsfleet have been though? That's what I've never understood. I followed the set up of MyFC and MyScotFC for a bit just out of interest but in the end I couldn't see the attraction of paying money in to a football club in return for being called upon to vote on whether or not to accept Brechin City's fifth increased bid on transfer deadline day - having moved just £50 - for your third choice Under 19's right back, or being called to vote on what laundry the club should use to wash the club kit after the big match on Saturday.

I can imagine that some people would be hugely interested in the intimate goings on of a football club, but I had a quick look around and it appears that MyFC struggled to get 20% turnout to vote on even the most important issues at the club. On the vote for the gimmick that you talk about - the pick the team one - turnout was less than 0.8%. Then there was the discussions on the forum where any sort of dissenting member risked being silenced by moderators who would ban dissenters to - it seems - protect their own interests. And ofcourse there was the other issue of members being able to set wage budgets at the club for a period that would be longer than the period of their membership meaning the club could be saddled with a huge bill at a time when the membership decides that actually they don't want to renew.

A genuine question Kenny but is there actually something good that can be stripped from the model?

There's very little to be learned from MyScotFC, though it was a worthwhile microcosm I suppose. Newmains were a poor choice, had I spoke to Shettleston or had more luck around the Third Lanark thing then who knows. I did get on Reporting Scotland though haha.

MYFC/Ebbsfleet is something that you can certainly take a lot out of, most of it on what NOT to do. With a bit more trust, honesty and promises being met then it would undoubtedly have seen Ebbsfleet United currently in the football leagues. A lot of the issues were down to the old guard and Will's seeming acceptance of the first half decent nibble along...I assume more around that, but can never quite be sure.

When the full membership were engaged it did work, some examples being:

- Getting Ebbsfleet into the Galabank Tournament, only for the club to pull out.

- The initial addition to the budget and push on to the FA Trophy Final, with subsequent victory.

- A number of players being funded, I think 3 or maybe 4 signings came from individal pledges arranged by the members.

- Adopt a Player, which is currently running even after everything.

- Full match highlights available online and on PS3...I forget the name of the company who ran it.

- 1 fully funded admission match.

The large votes for Ebbsfleet were the purchase of the club, though I think only 19,000 of the paid 27,000 or so voted...it should be remembered that money was taken pre-club selection let alone pre-agreement...the first kit agreement and the sale of John Akinde to Bristol City (I hope I got the club right). It wasn't all about votes and should never have been about the minor details really, sadly a lot of it was about in fighting and the 25% trying to preserve their club. A club that, frankly, hadn't seen any sort of heaedy heights, had a ludicrous business plan and came to MYFC as opposed to the other way around.

At board level it was an absolute nightmare, even when promoting a few wrestling shows I didn't see politics like it. "We don't care the vote result, can't we do something?" was almost a motto at times, members had their employers phoned to check their credibility and it was very difficult to get engagement unless it was an idea that would get the club through the month. Add to that loans being accepted without checks, unclarity over the purchase deal itself and firing staff without any discussion.

To sum all the above up, it should have been a very powerful football organisation drawing upon the skills, knowledge and locatiion of the members. I'm not saying it would have changed the world, but it shouldn't have been so afraid to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To sum all the above up, it should have been a very powerful football organisation drawing upon the skills, knowledge and locatiion of the members. I'm not saying it would have changed the world, but it shouldn't have been so afraid to try.

Kenny, you're being modest. MyScotFC was ok, it's just your membership numbers never really took off. At least your forums didn't read like the notations from an over the top meeting between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Shimon Peres like the ones around Ebbsfleet always seemed to do.

The paragraph I've quoted is what I would like to see 10000 hours do. Hopefully the elected boards will steer away from any idea that a poll or a referendum is needed for every decision and instead that the members will elected their representatives and let them get on with the task in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenny, you're being modest. MyScotFC was ok, it's just your membership numbers never really took off. At least your forums didn't read like the notations from an over the top meeting between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Shimon Peres like the ones around Ebbsfleet always seemed to do.

The paragraph I've quoted is what I would like to see 10000 hours do. Hopefully the elected boards will steer away from any idea that a poll or a referendum is needed for every decision and instead that the members will elected their representatives and let them get on with the task in hand.

I would agree with that, although I'm still a bit confused about what decisions will be taken by the elected board and what decisions will be taken by the members of the elected board who are on the board of the football club.

As far as I understand there will be about 10-11 members on the elected board about half of whom will also be on the football club board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with that, although I'm still a bit confused about what decisions will be taken by the elected board and what decisions will be taken by the members of the elected board who are on the board of the football club.

As far as I understand there will be about 10-11 members on the elected board about half of whom will also be on the football club board.

I think your numbers are about right regarding the two boards, although there was a good question about having an additional general member on the elected BoD. The response was that matters like that would be up to the members to decide when we get down to fine detail of ratifying the constitution. My take is that the elected BoD will make the big strategic decisions then it will be up to the SMFC BoD to deliver the strategy. I think REA commented that the last SMFC Board meeting was about renewing a contract for the maintenance of the lift or something along those lines. SMFC to sort out the operational side......elected BoD to decide on matters like balance of player budget versus ticket pricing. Not saying that is how it will work just surmising.

I think the BoDs would also have different responsibilities, which would help define their roles - as in SMFC would be responsible for its employees and for delivering the elected BoDs strategy, whereas the elected BoD would be responsible to the CIC membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I think your numbers are about right regarding the two boards, although there was a good question about having an additional general member on the elected BoD. The response was that matters like that would be up to the members to decide when we get down to fine detail of ratifying the constitution. My take is that the elected BoD will make the big strategic decisions then it will be up to the SMFC BoD to deliver the strategy. I think REA commented that the last SMFC Board meeting was about renewing a contract for the maintenance of the lift or something along those lines. SMFC to sort out the operational side......elected BoD to decide on matters like balance of player budget versus ticket pricing. Not saying that is how it will work just surmising.

I think the BoDs would also have different responsibilities, which would help define their roles - as in SMFC would be responsible for its employees and for delivering the elected BoDs strategy, whereas the elected BoD would be responsible to the CIC membership.

hope no one interupts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Fras, for me it's not necessarily a one way street. I defended the objectors right to post a few weeks back and said that the negatives has to be listened to for us all to form a reasoned opinion, but I'm finding myself bored with it already. Nothing new has been added to the debate over the last 2-3 weeks and when I log on here now all I see is petty slanging matches - I've even got caught up in one myself with Vambo who's idea of the consortium blowing the budget on some big money signings and then leaving it to the CIC to clear up the financial maelstrom is just about the most stupid thing I've read on a St Mirren forum - and there's always been plenty of competition for that mantle. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Just as well I had some time on my hands...Now, I was coming round to some of your more sensible ideas and comments and then I read back on some of your earlier posts and you come out with pish like this. :angry:

Where did I offer that up as an idea you pompous windbag?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:

Just as well I had some time on my hands...Now, I was coming round to some of your more sensible ideas and comments and then I read back on some of your earlier posts and you come out with pish like this. :angry:

Where did I offer that up as an idea you pompous windbag?

It's just as well I've got some time on my hands too - your daft arse comments about Gilmour and Co spending money the club doesn't have was right here...

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...