Jump to content

1ST CIC SCENARIO


Richie P

Recommended Posts

New St Mirren Park will be holding counciling sessions for over inflated egos. The cost will be dependant on how inflated they are. As an example a slightly inflated ego will cost between £20 and £40. if you are called Stuart Dickson the cost will be £180. Please make cheques payable to 10000hrs.org as we wish to be debt free in 6 months with this venture alone.

It's too far for me to travel in my straight jacket. Looks like I'll have to wait till Leeann Dempster gets her act together. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites


New St Mirren Park will be holding counciling sessions for over inflated egos. The cost will be dependant on how inflated they are. As an example a slightly inflated ego will cost between £20 and £40. if you are called Stuart Dickson the cost will be £180. Please make cheques payable to 10000hrs.org as we wish to be debt free in 6 months with this venture alone.

Will they be led by an experienced Renfrewshire C"ntcillor like Terry Kelly and cover corruption, intimidation, sectarianism, bigotry, how to hate St Mirren and general c"ntary? I suspect Stu will be glad to part with £180 for that, although he could probably lead the course himself. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will they be led by an experienced Renfrewshire C"ntcillor like Terry Kelly and cover corruption, intimidation, sectarianism, bigotry, how to hate St Mirren and general c"ntary? I suspect Stu will be glad to part with £180 for that, although he could probably lead the course himself. :P

I don't think I could cope with the full curriculum. I'm not experienced in corruption. I wouldn't be much use at teaching sectarianism and bigotry and "C"ntary" is too vague a topic. However the other two I can do to world class levels to the extent where £180 might just be too cheap. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this would be a footballing matter so would be handled exclusively by the football board and I guess their consultation with the manager.

I'd say that, at the very least, the members of the CIC should be consulted via a vote with a clear indication of the difference the 250K would make to the budget and how it could be applied. Basically something that removes the lack of informed opinion that would see comments such as "Right, who could we buy for 250K?" that would sweep like wildfire and the CIC will need to learn to court, but not dive in to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that, at the very least, the members of the CIC should be consulted via a vote with a clear indication of the difference the 250K would make to the budget and how it could be applied. Basically something that removes the lack of informed opinion that would see comments such as "Right, who could we buy for 250K?" that would sweep like wildfire and the CIC will need to learn to court, but not dive in to.

I reckon this would go to the members board. One example cited by REA would be a decision to sack the manager - that would have to go even further to the CIC BoD with a business plan in terms of how the funding would be used. I reckon the SMFC would need to formulate a business plan around how the additional money would be utilised and how the gap caused by selling the player would be filled. Frankly I think any offer of £250K for any of our players would be snatched at by all three BoDs. We are still very much a selling club. Any 6-figure sum would result in a "pack up yer kit stoopit you've scored" response from the BoDs. You would be freeing up a wage and would be able to double the money for something a wee bit special for at least a season, which could add a few points, league places and prize money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say that, at the very least, the members of the CIC should be consulted via a vote with a clear indication of the difference the 250K would make to the budget and how it could be applied. Basically something that removes the lack of informed opinion that would see comments such as "Right, who could we buy for 250K?" that would sweep like wildfire and the CIC will need to learn to court, but not dive in to.

No.

I think the decision on selling or signing a player should be the managers decision with the football board having the right to veto purchases or push through transfers on the basis that they control the budget. What you are talking about here is a modern day equivalent of the shareholders of the Carnegie Group meeting to vote on whether Walter Smith should sign Brian Laudrup or not.

Edited by Stuart Dickson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No.

I think the decision on selling or signing a player should be the managers decision with the football board having the right to veto purchases or push through transfers on the basis that they control the budget. What you are talking about here is a modern day equivalent of the shareholders of the Carnegie Group meeting to vote on whether Walter Smith should sign Brian Laudrup or not.

Nonsense, selling a player is currently not within the gift of Danny Lennon. He will certainly work with BC on the proposal to the BoD; however the BoD will make that decision and only the BoD. Once the members BoD is up and running there may well be a second level of approval required. This will be defined by the members; however I can gaurantee that the manager will not be given budgetary control over the players he wants to sign or sell. That would be financial suicide. The manager will need to put his case to the BoD just as Brian Caldwell would have to put forward a change like selling off the merchandising contract for example.

It's going to be an interesting time as we learn more about how the club functions over the coming months. However, the start point should be understanding the status quo before leaping to forum mentality opinions. The warm hand over to the CIC chaps was a very sensible way of working. It should be a similar process as the members BoD gets involved in the decision making at the club. Learn first with an open mind, then make changes from a position of knowledge once we fully understand what is involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense, selling a player is currently not within the gift of Danny Lennon. He will certainly work with BC on the proposal to the BoD; however the BoD will make that decision and only the BoD. Once the members BoD is up and running there may well be a second level of approval required. This will be defined by the members; however I can gaurantee that the manager will not be given budgetary control over the players he wants to sign or sell. That would be financial suicide. The manager will need to put his case to the BoD just as Brian Caldwell would have to put forward a change like selling off the merchandising contract for example.

It's going to be an interesting time as we learn more about how the club functions over the coming months. However, the start point should be understanding the status quo before leaping to forum mentality opinions. The warm hand over to the CIC chaps was a very sensible way of working. It should be a similar process as the members BoD gets involved in the decision making at the club. Learn first with an open mind, then make changes from a position of knowledge once we fully understand what is involved.

St Sid, I don't know for certain but I would imagine there would be legal ramifications if members of a parent company started interfering in the day to day running of a Ltd company which is a trading arm of their organisation. What you are suggesting here is that the process of selling a player would be as follows. Bid received, Ltd BOD discuss the offer with the manager and the General Manager and agree to sell the player however they now have to go to the parent organisation for approval from internet geeks who are not involved in the day to day running of the football club, who most likely know nothing about the players current attitude, his injury situation or any personal issues he may be having - and they are going to get the opportunity to veto the decision made by those appointed to be the experts. Remember there are also still shareholders within the Ltd Company who have not sold up to the CIC and the CIC only owns 52% control.

I think your model would do untold damage to the football club - much in the same way that MyFC eventually damaged Ebbsfleet United. On second thoughts - maybe I should just let you get on with it...... :P

Edited by Stuart Dickson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

St Sid, I don't know for certain but I would imagine there would be legal ramifications if members of a parent company started interfering in the day to day running of a Ltd company which is a trading arm of their organisation. What you are suggesting here is that the process of selling a player would be as follows. Bid received, Ltd BOD discuss the offer with the manager and the General Manager and agree to sell the player however they now have to go to the parent organisation for approval from internet geeks who are not involved in the day to day running of the football club, who most likely know nothing about the players current attitude, his injury situation or any personal issues he may be having - and they are going to get the opportunity to veto the decision made by those appointed to be the experts. Remember there are also still shareholders within the Ltd Company who have not sold up to the CIC and the CIC only owns 52% control.

I think your model would do untold damage to the football club - much in the same way that MyFC eventually damaged Ebbsfleet United. On second thoughts - maybe I should just let you get on with it...... :P

The above is a perfect example of someone ignorant of the runnings of a top flight football club fannyslabbering as they like to see their own bombasity on the Internet. It is just a step on from graffiti. :P

As I stated in my previous post there will need to be a period of learning, just as REA and CS have done. However, the chances of DL or any other manager being given the keys to the safe are zero. It'll never happen. The balance of decision making between the SMFC BoD and the Members BoD will be down to what is agreed in the constitution in my opinion. Remember the majority of the SMFC BoD will be made up of elected reps from the members BoD. They will have a legal responsibility to staff, but they will still require the support of the membership if they want to stay in their role. The detail of what will and what won't be referred to the members BoD will pretty much down to what the members want. As for the legal aspect you again seem confused by the trilogy BoD model. The SMFC BoD members from the members BoD will be acting in the interests of the members BoD and ultimately the members. The "experts" as in any other business can put forward proposals, but ultimately the BoD has the decision on whether they act on those proposals. There will of course be delegated resposibilities; however selling or buying assets would be unlikely to be devolved to a football manager. As we are seeing Danny already works with Brian Caldwell even in the current structure. Pretty sure that both will make reference to at least one SMFC director and it will be a director that signs off on the dotted line.

I wouldn't trust my staff buy a f'k'n carton of milk for their tea. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above is a perfect example of someone ignorant of the runnings of a top flight football club fannyslabbering as they like to see their own bombasity on the Internet. It is just a step on from graffiti. :P

As I stated in my previous post there will need to be a period of learning, just as REA and CS have done. However, the chances of DL or any other manager being given the keys to the safe are zero. It'll never happen. The balance of decision making between the SMFC BoD and the Members BoD will be down to what is agreed in the constitution in my opinion. Remember the majority of the SMFC BoD will be made up of elected reps from the members BoD. They will have a legal responsibility to staff, but they will still require the support of the membership if they want to stay in their role. The detail of what will and what won't be referred to the members BoD will pretty much down to what the members want. As for the legal aspect you again seem confused by the trilogy BoD model. The SMFC BoD members from the members BoD will be acting in the interests of the members BoD and ultimately the members. The "experts" as in any other business can put forward proposals, but ultimately the BoD has the decision on whether they act on those proposals. There will of course be delegated resposibilities; however selling or buying assets would be unlikely to be devolved to a football manager. As we are seeing Danny already works with Brian Caldwell even in the current structure. Pretty sure that both will make reference to at least one SMFC director and it will be a director that signs off on the dotted line.

I wouldn't trust my staff buy a f'k'n carton of milk for their tea. :P

I would put that down to poor recruitment Sid. Any staff member I've been involved in recruiting has turned out pretty well. However having seen the standard of person that populates Greenhill Road and heard their judgement on players ability I can certainly see where you are coming from.... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think your model would do untold damage to the football club - much in the same way that MyFC eventually damaged Ebbsfleet United. On second thoughts - maybe I should just let you get on with it...... :P

Careful with the totally uninformed nonsense. :)

It's actually very easy to argue that MYFC didn't damage Ebbsfleet United in any shape or form. Ebbsfleet would never have gained a Nike merchandise contract, never won the FA Trophy and never had much media exposure until MYFC came around. The club had gone full-time, but the person who made that decision should have been gagged and hidden in a cave somewhere so as to not risk him making any decisions ever again. Crowds certainly didn't drop at Ebbsfleet and relegation was pretty much a natural state of affairs when everything was said and done. I've not chatted with anyone involved in a while, but I'd imagine the MYFC member who is now Chairman has been instrumental in getting the club promoted again and the funding towards the playing budget by MYFC members will have been a great help too. There were/are issues, I've never said it was a failure or detrimental to Ebbsfleet and never would.

As for signings...

The sale of John Akinde was put to the MYFC members and given widespread media attention, 19,000 members voted and membership levels rose by about 6,000 in that time. Other sales went to the members also, can't remember the names off of the top of my head though Darius Charles and Michael West may have been two of them. I don't think any purchases went in front of the members, though funding for them did and the members also self-financed at least two transfers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful with the totally uninformed nonsense. :)

It's actually very easy to argue that MYFC didn't damage Ebbsfleet United in any shape or form. Ebbsfleet would never have gained a Nike merchandise contract, never won the FA Trophy and never had much media exposure until MYFC came around. The club had gone full-time, but the person who made that decision should have been gagged and hidden in a cave somewhere so as to not risk him making any decisions ever again. Crowds certainly didn't drop at Ebbsfleet and relegation was pretty much a natural state of affairs when everything was said and done. I've not chatted with anyone involved in a while, but I'd imagine the MYFC member who is now Chairman has been instrumental in getting the club promoted again and the funding towards the playing budget by MYFC members will have been a great help too. There were/are issues, I've never said it was a failure or detrimental to Ebbsfleet and never would.

As for signings...

The sale of John Akinde was put to the MYFC members and given widespread media attention, 19,000 members voted and membership levels rose by about 6,000 in that time. Other sales went to the members also, can't remember the names off of the top of my head though Darius Charles and Michael West may have been two of them. I don't think any purchases went in front of the members, though funding for them did and the members also self-financed at least two transfers.

And in 2009 the members voted to dump Nike after 1 year and got their kit instead from Vandanel

The problems associated with MyFC are outlined pretty well on here

http://soccerlens.com/ebbsfleet-and-myfc-vote-to-stay-alive/30224/

Obviously I wasn't a member Kenny, but I'd maintain that a model that gives the fans a final ill informed say on who to sign and who to sell is a recipe for complete disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David - I'm kind of surprised that I have to post this but the CIC is a Community Interest Company. 10,000hours SHOULD be more interested in the community than the football club, if it's not then it's not functioning properly. :rolleyes:

No, I don't think so.

CICs are limited companies, with special additional features, created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for private advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test" and "asset lock", which ensure that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these purposes.

The "business activity" in respect of 10000hours is St. Mirren FC Ltd and the "community interest test" is that 10000hours run St. Mirren FC Ltf forteh benefit of the community and any profit the CIC makes is used for the benefit of St. Mirren FC Ltd.

The CIC should therefore be primarily concerned with the football club, the aim being that a successful football club will benefit the community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think so.

CICs are limited companies, with special additional features, created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for private advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test" and "asset lock", which ensure that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these purposes.

The "business activity" in respect of 10000hours is St. Mirren FC Ltd and the "community interest test" is that 10000hours run St. Mirren FC Ltf forteh benefit of the community and any profit the CIC makes is used for the benefit of St. Mirren FC Ltd.

The CIC should therefore be primarily concerned with the football club, the aim being that a successful football club will benefit the community.

you've just made that up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in 2009 the members voted to dump Nike after 1 year and got their kit instead from Vandanel

The problems associated with MyFC are outlined pretty well on here

http://soccerlens.com/ebbsfleet-and-myfc-vote-to-stay-alive/30224/

Obviously I wasn't a member Kenny, but I'd maintain that a model that gives the fans a final ill informed say on who to sign and who to sell is a recipe for complete disaster.

It'd take me way too long to dig in to that article on here. A lot of the "Ebbsfleet can no longer..." style areas of discussion can be taken two ways. Yes, it's awful that the wage levels were cut and players had to leave, but without MYFC there'd have been no wage levels like that (sustainable ones anyway) or even players like that. It may have been one of the lowest in the league, but Ebbsfleet aren't a Luton, Oxford, Cambridge or York and certainly couldn't sustain the yearly losses other clubs had.

The Pick the team discuission isn't worth bothering about, whilst the issues around voting and getting information out was always shrouded in a certain amount of "make them vote yes..." and that just created apathy. I'm finding myself getting annoyed all over again and I'm only typing a forum post on here, I'll no doubt be caught by a few people at some point for a proper chat and that'll be fair enough.

Who's to say it'd be ill informed with the CIC though, poorly understood perhaps. It needn't be final say either, just give the information and involve the members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink:

any profit the CIC makes is used for the benefit of St. Mirren FC Ltd.

Well yeh - I usually make up my own opinions!

Opinion is always accepted as such but when you state the trading of the CIC and profits of the CIC will be as above then it is clearly wrong and you have made it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I don't think so.

CICs are limited companies, with special additional features, created for the use of people who want to conduct a business or other activity for community benefit, and not purely for private advantage. This is achieved by a "community interest test" and "asset lock", which ensure that the CIC is established for community purposes and the assets and profits are dedicated to these purposes.

The "business activity" in respect of 10000hours is St. Mirren FC Ltd and the "community interest test" is that 10000hours run St. Mirren FC Ltf forteh benefit of the community and any profit the CIC makes is used for the benefit of St. Mirren FC Ltd.

The CIC should therefore be primarily concerned with the football club, the aim being that a successful football club will benefit the community.

Sorry I'll edit this.

Gary - you've got the structure wrong. The CIC will own a controlling stake in St Mirren Ltd, it's not the other way around. The CIC is the parent group. Any profits generated will be reinvested in the community, in facilities, projects etc.

I'm not sure where you get the idea from that the funders have decided that they will invest large sums of money in Scottish Football to make St Mirren more successful, as well as Clyde, Stenhousemuir and Edinburgh Spartans. Do you really think that the Big Lottery is making a sustained bid to win the SPL or the Scottish Cup?

Edited by Stuart Dickson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It'd take me way too long to dig in to that article on here. A lot of the "Ebbsfleet can no longer..." style areas of discussion can be taken two ways. Yes, it's awful that the wage levels were cut and players had to leave, but without MYFC there'd have been no wage levels like that (sustainable ones anyway) or even players like that. It may have been one of the lowest in the league, but Ebbsfleet aren't a Luton, Oxford, Cambridge or York and certainly couldn't sustain the yearly losses other clubs had.

The Pick the team discuission isn't worth bothering about, whilst the issues around voting and getting information out was always shrouded in a certain amount of "make them vote yes..." and that just created apathy. I'm finding myself getting annoyed all over again and I'm only typing a forum post on here, I'll no doubt be caught by a few people at some point for a proper chat and that'll be fair enough.

Who's to say it'd be ill informed with the CIC though, poorly understood perhaps. It needn't be final say either, just give the information and involve the members.

Ok Kenny, lets say there is an issue at the club. Your Centre Half has been pumping the Right Backs wife. Now one refuses to play football with the other. You've got an offer on the table well below perceived market value but it's obvious that if you are in full possession of the facts accepting the bid is the best thing you can do. How would you deal with that? E-mail all 700 odd members to give them all the sordid details of what has been an embarrassing episode for all concerned and hope there isn't a journalist amongst them? How would you get them to accept that a player rated at £200k+ should be sold for £50,000?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First paragraph is correct and true.

Second paragraph is correct and true.

Paragraph three I assume comes from a huge leap in logic and it's a load of bollocks. Sorry Gary but it is. Funders are not throwing money into the 10000hours project to make St Mirren a successful football club. :rolleyes:

So if the mission isn't to make St. Mirren successful (as presumably that is the benefit to the community), what is the mission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Kenny, lets say there is an issue at the club. Your Centre Half has been pumping the Right Backs wife. Now one refuses to play football with the other. You've got an offer on the table well below perceived market value but it's obvious that if you are in full possession of the facts accepting the bid is the best thing you can do. How would you deal with that? E-mail all 700 odd members to give them all the sordid details of what has been an embarrassing episode for all concerned and hope there isn't a journalist amongst them? How would you get them to accept that a player rated at £200k+ should be sold for £50,000?

Surely the BoDs of St. Mirren FC Ltd's legal duty is to do what is in the best interest of St. Mirren FC Ltd as a business and its shareholders (48% of whom will not be owned by the CIC)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the mission isn't to make St. Mirren successful (as presumably that is the benefit to the community), what is the mission?

Gary - I've edited that post and hopefully made it clearer.

The 10000hours documents are online and the structures are pretty clear. St Mirren Ltd will be a trading arm for the parent CIC group. 10000hours isn't going to stop dead at St Mirren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the BoDs of St. Mirren FC Ltd's legal duty is to do what is in the best interest of St. Mirren FC Ltd as a business and its shareholders (48% of whom will not be owned by the CIC)?

Agreed.

If you follow the thread you'll see that it's St Sid and Tsu who are suggesting that there is benefit to in some way consulting with the individual members of the CIC before approving the purchase or sale of players.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...