Jump to content

Meeting on Thursday Confirmed


St. Sid
 Share

Recommended Posts

If no one else is interested then why are 10000 Hours quite happy to pay the £2 million to the consortium and not a lower figure?

That's a reasonable question and one I'd considered before, but I suspect the answer is relatively straightforward.

10000 Hours had to know at an early stage just how much money it had to raise from the various sources in order to start making the necessary arrangements. It wasn't really in a position to enter into a bidding scenario as individuals with a pot of money perhaps would. They had to agree to the asking price in order to pretty much ensure that they have first dibs on the shares. I don't think they could have contemplated offering, say £1.2M, and then embarked on the very complex process of applying for grants, loans, membership, only to be out-bid during the process.

This is one instance when the asking proce had to be met for the purchase to be viable. Seems a lot of poppy to me, but there you go.

Edit: for shite typing

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites


If no one else is interested then why are 10000 Hours quite happy to pay the £2 million to the consortium and not a lower figure?

... because from the outset, RA and his team came to the conclusion that the asking price was fair. RA and Chris Stewart were co-opted onto the BOD, working alongside, and not against, SG and the consortium - to conclude a deal that will hopefully be to the benefit of all. It wasn't a hostile takeover, or a case of RA pointing a gun to the outgoing BODs head saying 'take it or leave it', or trying to knock 250 grand off the asking price. Would it have been better had SG & Co valued the club at less than 2m? Undoubtably for everyone except the selling consortium that is. If the 2m price is an issue, it is a finger to be pointed at the selling consortium.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Genuine answer: You will be able to correct me if I am wrong did RA announce that the deal is done I.e. all funding in their hands and able to complete deal with the sellers?

My understanding is that he did not say that! But eluded to the deal not being complete (I.e. not having the full funding and not having passed this on to the sellers) Re a techinical issue.

If i go for a pint, the barman wants £3.50 and i've got £2.95 the deal is as yet not finalised due to the technical issue of me being 55p short.

Now it may well come to pass at some point they get the funding, but patently thay don't have it now otherwise they would be able to issue a timetable for final completion, and tell everyone what they want to know.

Yes we have completed the deal and we expect to take control by ....... apart from G Scott throwing his hat in for a board seat what new information was released last night? A maybe six weeks but maybe not? The situation is the same as this time yesterday save for another batch of aspirations and they don't service your debt!

As i said it trundles on

So ,in short, your sole reason for being anti-10000hours is because the deal has taken longer than anticipated. With all due respect, that is absurd.

I've learned plenty from last night's meeting, maybe your inability to decipher data has prevented you from gaining any knowledge, but that isn't REA's fault.

What difference doe the length of time until completion make to you or to the running of the club? Maybe you have a genuine concern and are unable to express yourself effectively (it must be frustrating if you do), but I really don't see your point. All you keep saying is that this is taking too long. Too long for what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The situation is the same as this time yesterday save for another batch of aspirations and they don't service your debt!

As i said it trundles on

I thought that the meeting was useful even though the deal is not yet complete because there were a number of issues raised which put rumours and grumblings to bed: eg Tony Fitzpatrick has lost interest in / fallen out with the CIC folks (not true), the CIC fell out with Provans or stabbed them in the back with the deal with strips and merchandising (not true), the consortium are split and losing patience with the CIC and about to seek another buyer (not true), we should be worried about RA setting up a company with SG (the reason was explained at the meeting) and concerns about merchandising and the club shop, the new bar etc were raised and answered on the night and more people handed in direct debit mandates and the skills audits where they listed ways they would consider helping the CIC. To imply that after the meeting we are no further forward than the day before the meeting is nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

So ,in short, your sole reason for being anti-10000hours is because the deal has taken longer than anticipated. With all due respect, that is absurd.

I've learned plenty from last night's meeting, maybe your inability to decipher data has prevented you from gaining any knowledge, but that isn't REA's fault.

What difference doe the length of time until completion make to you or to the running of the club? Maybe you have a genuine concern and are unable to express yourself effectively (it must be frustrating if you do), but I really don't see your point. All you keep saying is that this is taking too long. Too long for what?

I am anti a back to front proposal, executed in a back to front manner that only serves to raise a debt that trading at the club will have to pay for. If the proposal ever does come off the endeavours of 10000 hours, the CiC, the bar etc will not be putting anything by the way of SMFC! but indeed want to take as much resource, effort and good name of SMFC to help pay off it's debt.

Yes i know they said they hope in a year or two to be contributing to the club, but that is all it is a HOPE, like they HOPE to complete at some point. You can try all you like trying to paint my position as you have above but anyone including yourself that has read my posts can see your take on my position is as accurate as RA's timetable to complete.... It's all over the place :D

But it will never stop me supporting the club I love, so do your worst

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am anti a back to front proposal, executed in a back to front manner t

Are you suggesting the CIC should have gone to social funders prior to having any sort of agreement to buy, knowledge of how the club runs or a sustainable business plan. You sir are either Will Brooks or absolutely nuts!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

I thought that the meeting was useful even though the deal is not yet complete because there were a number of issues raised which put rumours and grumblings to bed: eg Tony Fitzpatrick has lost interest in / fallen out with the CIC folks (not true), the CIC fell out with Provans or stabbed them in the back with the deal with strips and merchandising (not true), the consortium are split and losing patience with the CIC and about to seek another buyer (not true), we should be worried about RA setting up a company with SG (the reason was explained at the meeting) and concerns about merchandising and the club shop, the new bar etc were raised and answered on the night and more people handed in direct debit mandates and the skills audits where they listed ways they would consider helping the CIC. To imply that after the meeting we are no further forward than the day before the meeting is nonsense.

So the deal's done then? We've got a date?

The consortium are up sh.t creek without a paddle they are stuck with 10000 hours, and have formed a company with them, their hands are tied, although they'd prefer them to be rubbing them around £2m one day :D th

I am sure even the most ardent supporter of the CiC proposal wanted a concrete answer on when things would really start, rather than the skills thingy buying a bit more time by keeping a few buds busy

RA and whover he drags out to give his bid a veneer of credibility can talk all they want (And mostly thats what last night was). Let's see them actually DELIVER.... then we can assess their credibilty

Edited by somner9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am anti a back to front proposal, executed in a back to front manner that only serves to raise a debt that trading at the club will have to pay for. If the proposal ever does come off the endeavours of 10000 hours, the CiC, the bar etc will not be putting anything by the way of SMFC! but indeed want to take as much resource, effort and good name of SMFC to help pay off it's debt.

Yes i know they said they hope in a year or two to be contributing to the club, but that is all it is a HOPE, like they HOPE to complete at some point. You can try all you like trying to paint my position as you have above but anyone including yourself that has read my posts can see your take on my position is as accurate as RA's timetable to complete.... It's all over the place :D

But it will never stop me supporting the club I love, so do your worst

You don't seem to understand this process could not have happened if it were not back to front. They have acknowledged that it may not suit some people. What more could they have done. It is a means to an end and will achieve the exact same outcome if it was done the opposite way around.

The word "hope" with emphasis added is entirely misleading. If I'm not mistaken there is a rigid business plan in place, which has been scrutinised by stakeholders.Taking your line of thinking every business transaction in every field would be one of "hope."

You say nothing will be put the way of SMFC, that is completely disingenuous. Admitted in the early stages a large chunk of the CIC's earnings will be used to pay off the CIC's debt (nothing got do with the club),But after that, where do you expect the money to go? Strippers in the members bar maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shoot the messenger by all means :lol: The deal is at the same point it was yesterday "Not Done" and no firm date has been given when completion is expected.

Jeez we all know through the years (Alan Gow & Maurice Ross recent examples) about supposed done deals and until the contract is signed and monies transferred nothing is certain. This makes me a foot stomping child for pointing out the obvious?

FYI horses whinny :D

Dry your eyes, as this is going to happen whether you like it or not. <_<

And whether I like it or not.

You are at the straw clutching stage now anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

Are you suggesting the CIC should have gone to social funders prior to having any sort of agreement to buy, knowledge of how the club runs or a sustainable business plan. You sir are either Will Brooks or absolutely nuts!

No they should have approached the support of SMFC first! not last...... and outlined the benefits (in detail) of the CiC. then did they same with the community groups. What they have is a proposal that requires the individual or group to contribute without knowing what benefit (In detail) that contribution will derive.

Ask S Dickson who posts on here and tried to get a bit of detail on what his youth football club would get in the way of benefits for their contribution.

If you or I are asked/invited to join a club/organisation etc and contribute we want to know whats in it for us (benefit) 10000 hours have very carefully indicated that all they put forward as benefits are labelled POTENTIAL... They say they will build a members bar, ok you can say thats a benefit. However where does the profit from said bar go??? To 10000 hours to service it's debt. and this benefits SMFC how???

Can you see how the funding bodies might have issues when even the members don't know what they might get out of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

Dry your eyes, as this is going to happen whether you like it or not. <_<

And whether I like it or not.

You are at the straw clutching stage now anyway.

We'll see, if and when it happens. It still promises much but guarantees little for SMFC. And if it's detrimental to the club we will find out a lot sooner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RA and whover he drags out to give his bid a veneer of credibility can talk all they want (And mostly thats what last night was).

In what way does the bid lack credibility?

As far as I'm aware there's a big pile of documents, direct debits, funders, business, fans backing the proposal. Surely this tangible support gives credibility? Certainly more credibility than you currently have, not one piece of factual evidence has been provided by yourself.

You may not like the bid, you may not support the bid, but to say it lacks credibility is laughable.

Edited by civilsaint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am anti a back to front proposal, executed in a back to front manner that only serves to raise a debt that trading at the club will have to pay for. If the proposal ever does come off the endeavours of 10000 hours, the CiC, the bar etc will not be putting anything by the way of SMFC! but indeed want to take as much resource, effort and good name of SMFC to help pay off it's debt.

Yes i know they said they hope in a year or two to be contributing to the club, but that is all it is a HOPE, like they HOPE to complete at some point. You can try all you like trying to paint my position as you have above but anyone including yourself that has read my posts can see your take on my position is as accurate as RA's timetable to complete.... It's all over the place :D

But it will never stop me supporting the club I love, so do your worst

Rather odd that you keep crying foul about not being able to voice your opinion - especially at the same time as you voice it. :P

A lot of people have taken the time to review the numbers from the CIC and that includes the social funders providing the hard cash to back the plans. Without reviewing any of the information you have decided that the plan will deliver nothing for the club. That and you refuse to engage with the CIC proposers to discuss your concerns.

I have seen nothing in the CIC proposal about not wanting current fans to support the club that we love.

I reckon that the CIC will very soon become a matter of complete disinterest for most fans - even those putting money in. Why? Because we are football fans first and foremost. I have absolutely no desire to paint f'k'n pipes or help cut the grass or mentor some shady wegiescumbag through their f"kwit crisis. I will want to support the club the way I do now - turn up for the home games and get behind the team.

There is heightened sense of drama around every small happening at the club just now, whether it the availability of a pair of f'k'n socks or the bizarre laundry announcement. That will soon fade and we will all be back to talking about what we love football.

The usual creepy types will now be sniffing around the club to see what is in it for them. Once the dust settles there will be a core body of people capable of running the club and a few hingers on. The rest of us will get back to supporting the club.

I like the CIC and what it will achieve; however like most Saints fans I won't be submitting a form to offer my services for hee-haw. I will be content to know that the club is in safe hands, with safeguards in place to stop the club being pilferred or frittered away by egomaniacs.

The CIC is now at the stage where you should be deciding if you want to be involved. If you don't, then like me it is time to let them get on with and wish them well.

For your own comfort it is well worth meeting the people involved. I have done that and am more comfortable with the CIC thing as a result.

Or you can be angry about it if that's your bag. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

You don't seem to understand this process could not have happened if it were not back to front. They have acknowledged that it may not suit some people. What more could they have done. It is a means to an end and will achieve the exact same outcome if it was done the opposite way around.

The word "hope" with emphasis added is entirely misleading. If I'm not mistaken there is a rigid business plan in place, which has been scrutinised by stakeholders.Taking your line of thinking every business transaction in every field would be one of "hope."

You say nothing will be put the way of SMFC, that is completely disingenuous. Admitted in the early stages a large chunk of the CIC's earnings will be used to pay off the CIC's debt (nothing got do with the club),But after that, where do you expect the money to go? Strippers in the members bar maybe?

Ah the rigid business plan, you'd think the members would be the people who got to see that? Was it circulated again last night? If not how can an elected fans board be held to account, or indeed hold the other boards to account when they are blind to what is happening?

That as i'm sure you know is not how any credible business works. Ask RA if that's how they do it at Maxi group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

In what way does the bid lack credibility?

As far as I'm aware there's a big pile of documents, direct debits, funders, business, fans backing the proposal. Surely this tangible support gives credibility? Certainly more credibility than you currently have, not one piece of factual evidence has been provided by yourself.

You may not like the bid, you may not support the bid, but to say it lacks credibility is laughable.

Sorry you've lost me where did I say in that post it lacks credibilty?

The devil is in the detail, and inspite of what anyone on here claims no one has seen the devil yet :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah the rigid business plan, you'd think the members would be the people who got to see that? Was it circulated again last night? If not how can an elected fans board be held to account, or indeed hold the other boards to account when they are blind to what is happening?

That as i'm sure you know is not how any credible business works. Ask RA if that's how they do it at Maxi group?

Did you ask to see the details? They would have been available had you asked. Clearly publishing the finite details in the public domain wasn't going to happen. If you don't understand that, you are beyond repair.

Go on, tell us how a credible business works.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

Did you ask to see the details? They would have been available had you asked. Clearly publishing the finite details in the public domain wasn't going to happen. If you don't understand that, you are beyond repair.

Go on, tell us how a credible business works.......

Normally by ensuring the owners (i.e members) know what the business plan is before they agree to buy into it. Of course that may be a crazy bonkers way of approaching it, but hey that must make the vast bulk of people investing in a business crazy bonkers? Who knows :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry you've lost me where did I say in that post it lacks credibilty?

The devil is in the detail, and inspite of what anyone on here claims no one has seen the devil yet :o

I think when you said RA drags people out to give his plan a veneer of credibility was maybe something to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry you've lost me where did I say in that post it lacks credibilty?

The devil is in the detail, and inspite of what anyone on here claims no one has seen the devil yet :o

RA and whover he drags out to give his bid a veneer of credibility can talk all they want

Indeed, the devil is in the detail.

The use of "veneer" points to the fact you are suggesting credibility is only surface deep. In other words, the main body of the CIC has no credibility. Or maybe you didn't understand the meaning of veneer, and that isn't what you meant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

Happy to make a deal with anyone interested???

I won't post again on here highlighting the many deficiencies in 10000 hours proposal to set up a CiC (Via a private company) to take a 52% share in SMFC until/If they complete the deal.

Now how can you refuse that offer :D

And if they do complete it, well there wouldn't be much point :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

Indeed, the devil is in the detail.

The use of "veneer" points to the fact you are suggesting credibility is only surface deep. In other words, the main body of the CIC has no credibility. Or maybe you didn't understand the meaning of veneer, and that isn't what you meant.

Is a veneer a tangible entity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when you said RA drags people out to give his plan a veneer of credibility was maybe something to do with it.

Are we going over all this old ground again?

The meeting on Thursday night was a "Members" meeting. If you wish to know what happened at the meeting then you should have joined and attended!

The details of the cic need not be poured over on here again.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We'll see, if and when it happens. It still promises much but guarantees little for SMFC. And if it's detrimental to the club we will find out a lot sooner

Oh it's going to happen. Why will it be detrimental to the club? :blink: The club will carry on regardless of what the CiC gets up to. The club will at least be operating under the same income streams as it is at this moment in time.

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...