Is the CIC dead?

[reborn saint]

I don't get your defamatory angle?

Who owned smfc at the time love street was sold to tesco? Answer the Bod and (incl) shareholders at the time, and given they sold for around £10m it is not defamtory to say that the sellers profited from the sale! (Nice return) What they did or didn't do with the proceeds is indeed another matter.

If you are suggesting the sale actually cost BoD members then to suggest they profited would be wrong but again not defamatory. Best also to bear in mind no one ever paid £10million for love street before tesco acquired it so the profit of the sale was indeed substantial

One of the subsequent posters used the phrase "Pocketed" which perhaps is an unfortunate add on but not part of my post

£10Million.....?.......2nd public meeting ......REA asks SG after a question from a supporter....".I don't know what was the total cost of the deal?"......."12 million" answers SG. Now this higher figure makes the sale of St Mirren look better at a value of £4million in total. Stuart Dickson has led the way on trying to find out the actual cost of the deal on here without any support. My phone was on record so it's £12 million

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Original quotes on the subject of the board and the profits from the sale of Love Street were in these paragraphs from somner9:

"The selling consortium are ultimately responsible for dragging the club and support through all this. They should have realised if something looks too good to be true (getting £2m for half smfc) then it almost cetainly is too good to be true. Now the sellers have snookered themselves, as 10000 hours can't complete and they have tied themselves up in companies and allsorts with them. i don't feel any sympathy towarsd the sellers they saw the chance to cash in big again (Don't forget they will have seen a nice return on the sale of Love street) and were blinded to the obvious downsides of association with a group of amateurs who honestly believed they could go about the process in reverse".

That post suggests that the board "cashed in big" when they sold Love Street for £10m or £12m depending which figure you go with, and that some of Tescos millions went to the board members personally rather than repaying the bank debt or meeting the costs of 1) building the new ground at Greenhill Road, 2) demolishing the ground at Love Street 3) paying some of the costs of building the new training ground and 4) meeting some of the debts from the clubs running costs since the sale of Love Street. (SG said the money from the semi final and final cup runs, sale of McGinn etc went on finishing off the training ground and making up for the financial losses in the 2008/9, and 2009/10 seasons and said the idea that the club was still sitting on unspent millions left over from the Tesco deal was a fallacy).

Somner9 has yet to provide any evidence the board received any money from the sale of Love Street or profited from the sale on a personal level.

[billyg]

Original quotes on the subject of the board and the profits from the sale of Love Street were in these paragraphs from somner9:

"The selling consortium are ultimately responsible for dragging the club and support through all this. They should have realised if something looks too good to be true (getting £2m for half smfc) then it almost cetainly is too good to be true. Now the sellers have snookered themselves, as 10000 hours can't complete and they have tied themselves up in companies and allsorts with them. i don't feel any sympathy towarsd the sellers they saw the chance to cash in big again (Don't forget they will have seen a nice return on the sale of Love street) and were blinded to the obvious downsides of association with a group of amateurs who honestly believed they could go about the process in reverse".

That post suggests that the board "cashed in big" when they sold Love Street for £10m or £12m depending which figure you go with, and that some of Tescos millions went to the board members personally rather than repaying the bank debt or meeting the costs of 1) building the new ground at Greenhill Road, 2) demolishing the ground at Love Street 3) paying some of the costs of building the new training ground and 4) meeting some of the debts from the clubs running costs since the sale of Love Street. (SG said the money from the semi final and final cup runs, sale of McGinn etc went on finishing off the training ground and making up for the financial losses in the 2008/9, and 2009/10 seasons and said the idea that the club was still sitting on unspent millions left over from the Tesco deal was a fallacy).

Somner9 has yet to provide any evidence the board received any money from the sale of Love Street or profited from the sale on a personal level.

It is widely known that BOD members recouped their personal outlays from the sale of Love St , I'm pretty sure they even came out before the sale and indicated that they would be taking what was owed to them !

[Dibbles old paperboy]

It is widely known that BOD members recouped their personal outlays from the sale of Love St , I'm pretty sure they even came out before the sale and indicated that they would be taking what was owed to them !

... getting their loans to the club repaid when Love Street was sold is surely something different from the board cashing in big / profiting / getting a nice return from the sale. It is hardly surprising the money they were owed by the club was settled at the same time as the bank debts and other debts when it was widely publicised that the reason for selling Love Street was to deal with the club's debts.

[billyg]

... getting their loans to the club repaid when Love Street was sold is surely something different from the board cashing in big / profiting / getting a nice return from the sale. It is hardly surprising the money they were owed by the club was settled at the same time as the bank debts and other debts when it was widely publicised that the reason for selling Love Street was to deal with the club's debts.

Only now it's different , as the £2m paid for 52% of the club would be clear profit , yes?

[Guest somner9]

Y

Original quotes on the subject of the board and the profits from the sale of Love Street were in these paragraphs from somner9:

"The selling consortium are ultimately responsible for dragging the club and support through all this. They should have realised if something looks too good to be true (getting £2m for half smfc) then it almost cetainly is too good to be true. Now the sellers have snookered themselves, as 10000 hours can't complete and they have tied themselves up in companies and allsorts with them. i don't feel any sympathy towarsd the sellers they saw the chance to cash in big again (Don't forget they will have seen a nice return on the sale of Love street) and were blinded to the obvious downsides of association with a group of amateurs who honestly believed they could go about the process in reverse".

That post suggests that the board "cashed in big" when they sold Love Street for £10m or £12m depending which figure you go with, and that some of Tescos millions went to the board members personally rather than repaying the bank debt or meeting the costs of 1) building the new ground at Greenhill Road, 2) demolishing the ground at Love Street 3) paying some of the costs of building the new training ground and 4) meeting some of the debts from the clubs running costs since the sale of Love Street. (SG said the money from the semi final and final cup runs, sale of McGinn etc went on finishing off the training ground and making up for the financial losses in the 2008/9, and 2009/10 seasons and said the idea that the club was still sitting on unspent millions left over from the Tesco deal was a fallacy).

Somner9 has yet to provide any evidence the board received any money from the sale of Love Street or profited from the sale on a personal level.

You are getting yourself in a bit of a pickle here by adding insinuation, speculation and fabrication to my post. Which is a bit strange given YOU have highlighted a very pertinent point! That being if i take out a loan with Bank of cashland then when I repay said loan Bank of Cashland will have made a "Nice Return" on the interest charged over the term of the loan.

Questions answered?

P.s. thought i had seen this previously, might open up a few eyes a wee bit more

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/saints-sell-love-st-to-tesco-for-pound-18m-1.947251

Edited November 13, 2011 by somner9

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Y

You are getting yourself in a bit of a pickle here by adding insinuation, speculation and fabrication to my post. Which is a bit strange given YOU have highlighted a very pertinent point! That being if i take out a loan with Bank of cashland then when I repay said loan Bank of Cashland will have made a "Nice Return" on the interest charged over the term of the loan.

Questions answered?

P.s. thought i had seen this previously, might open up a few eyes a wee bit more

http://www.eveningti...nd-18m-1.947251

The Evening Times article quoted doesn't have the exact figures on what Tesco ended up paying, or the size of the new stadium or the amount of debt the club were carrying:

"The deal thought to be worth£18m will see the club move to a new 10,000 seater stadium in Greenhill Road..."

"St Mirren chairman Stewart Gilmour said: "It's a long way from being completed, but we have an agreement in principle. There are still some planning conditions to be ironed out."

The deal would wipe out the club's liabilities, thought to be as much as £5m, pay for the new stadium and leave Saints with a cash surplus."

[Guest somner9]

The Evening Times article quoted doesn't have the exact figures on what Tesco ended up paying, or the size of the new stadium or the amount of debt the club were carrying:

"The deal thought to be worth£18m will see the club move to a new 10,000 seater stadium in Greenhill Road..."

"St Mirren chairman Stewart Gilmour said: "It's a long way from being completed, but we have an agreement in principle. There are still some planning conditions to be ironed out."

The deal would wipe out the club's liabilities, thought to be as much as £5m, pay for the new stadium and leave Saints with a cash surplus."

Somewhere between £12 to £18million? A nice return in anyone's language

[The Silent Majority]

Only now it's different , as the £2m paid for 52% of the club would be clear profit , yes?

No. The directors had to pay for those shares in the first place (via the 2 rights share issues).

So far the directors have only got back the loans they gave the club. They haven't got back the money they ploughed into the club to buy the shares.

[Guest somner9]

No. The directors had to pay for those shares in the first place (via the 2 rights share issues).

So far the directors have only got back the loans they gave the club. They haven't got back the money they ploughed into the club to buy the shares.

I suppose in respect to the ethics of "FairPlay" you would be able to explicitly back-up those statements?

[billyg]

They haven't got back the money they ploughed into the club to buy the shares.

Which was a lot less than what they're asking for them now?

[Guest somner9]

Why is it difficult to accept that people make money out of business deals? It's not a secret, it's a fact. Why would you continue to insist or be in denial that the sale of a football ground for a fee between £12 to £18 million wouldn't enable the parties involved to draw down capital from the company/companies involved?

The selling consortium and wider BoD done good and saved SMFC, I can't think of anyone who would begrudge them what they are entitled to for what they have endured! But FFS let's stop pretending that people don't make money out of multi-million pound deals

[The Silent Majority]

I suppose in respect to the ethics of "FairPlay" you would be able to explicitly back-up those statements?

Its public knowledge. There was a rights issue back in 1998 which was to specifically save the club and then there was another one in 1999 to fund the work at the Love Street end to make the ground SPL compliant. The directors underwrote those issues and bought up shares that the other shareholders didn’t take up (which was the vast majority).

The issued shares back pre 1998 were 20,000 I believe. I don’t have a copy of the Report & Accounts to hand but a latest copy will tell you how many are now issued and also how many all the directors now own. I think the shares were sold for £10 a share in the rights issues – but someone else might be able to correct me on that. I remember buying some for my son at the time.

It would be possible to work out roughly how much the consortium paid for all their shares by comparing a Report & Accounts pre 1998 with a current copy. I did it once before and the amount they paid would have been substantial.

I'm not taking any sides here btw! Just stating what I know to be true!

Edited November 14, 2011 by The Silent Majority

[The Silent Majority]

Which was a lot less than what they're asking for them now?

Yes, I don't disagree.

However, to be fair, you need to take into account inflation since 1998/99, the interest paid on the money borrowed to buy the shares, the risk taken and, not least, all the personal time they gave to sell the ground to Tesco, all done for free.

I suspect that if you applied a decent hourly rate to all the time they gave to the project in addition to the cost of buying the shares (including interest payments and inflation) that the return they are looking for isn’t really that great.

As I said in my reply to Somner9, I’m not taking any sides here. Just trying to be objective and fair with regards to the selling consortium.

[Guest somner9]

Its public knowledge. There was a rights issue back in 1998 which was to specifically save the club and then there was another one in 1999 to fund the work at the Love Street end to make the ground SPL compliant. The directors underwrote those issues and bought up shares that the other shareholders didn’t take up (which was the vast majority).

The issued shares back pre 1998 were 20,000 I believe. I don’t have a copy of the Report & Accounts to hand but a latest copy will tell you how many are now issued and also how many all the directors now own. I think the shares were sold for £10 a share in the rights issues – but someone else might be able to correct me on that. I remember buying some for my son at the time.

It would be possible to work out roughly how much the consortium paid for all their shares by comparing a Report & Accounts pre 1998 with a current copy. I did it once before and the amount they paid would have been substantial.

I'm not taking any sides here btw! Just stating what I know to be true!

Thanks for the info, I don't doubt any of that, but it was this bit i was more interested in: "So far the directors have only got back the loans they gave the club. They haven't got back the money they ploughed into the club to buy the shares."

[Bud the Baker]

To back up TSM the money loaned to the club by the BoD and it's repayment was documented in the Shareholder's Report which was audited by independant accountants.

As for the CiC, I was agin it from Day 1 (still am for the reasons given in April), but if the BoD had been able to tie the deal up quickly then I'd have said good luck to 'em but as time drags on (are the computers still down at Maxi group?) the doubts increase.

I'll maybe drag my carcase along to the AGM this year 'cos I'd like to know (amongst other things) how much money has been spent on the CiC application so far and who is footing the bill for it - I've a feeling this years event will be quite lively.

[The Silent Majority]

Thanks for the info, I don't doubt any of that, but it was this bit i was more interested in: "So far the directors have only got back the loans they gave the club. They haven't got back the money they ploughed into the club to buy the shares."

I’m probably being thick here (not unusual!), so what you are interested in is whether they have got their money back for the loans?

I think BTB’s post answers that (as far as I know). Its all accounted for in the Report & Accounts.

[Guest somner9]

Sorry if this has caused any confusion but an earlier poster and one of the Mods suggested that by stating the people (BoD members/Selling consortium) who saw money returned to them by the club was in some way defamatory, which obviously it isn't. There was also a deep denial that in a multi million pound deal somehow no one benefited on the selling side which beggars belief. appreciate TSM & BTB's factual accounts regarding the dispersal of funds after the ground sale.

[The Silent Majority]

Sorry if this has caused any confusion but an earlier poster and one of the Mods suggested that by stating the people (BoD members/Selling consortium) who saw money returned to them by the club was in some way defamatory, which obviously it isn't. There was also a deep denial that in a multi million pound deal somehow no one benefited on the selling side which beggars belief. appreciate TSM & BTB's factual accounts regarding the dispersal of funds after the ground sale.

I can’t see how anyone can personally have benefitted from the deal so far.

Tesco agreed to build an SPL compliant stadium for St. Mirren plus pay a sum of money to the club, St. Mirren FC Ltd.

That sum of money hasn’t gone to any shareholders, its all been used to pay off debts (including loans made to the club by directors) and for work at the training complex.

Everything has been reported in the Report & Accounts which have been audited.

The only way the selling consortium can make any money from the Tesco deal, as far as I can see, is if they can sell their shares for a profit. And even then, as I mentioned in an earlier post, any profit would need to take into account the interest they will have paid on any borrowings they had to make to buy the shares in the first place plus all the hours of unpaid work they undertook whilst working on the deal.

Again, I am taking no sides here. I own some of the 48% of shares that will effectively become worthless should the CIC offer (or indeed other offer) go through. I actually therefore have a vested interest in the selling consortium failing to sell their shares to anyone. In effect they will make a profit at my expense. However, I recognise that they are the ones that put their own money at risk and did the work to make it happen. If they hadn’t done so then my shares would have been worthless anyway! Therefore I’m not too miffed if the selling consortium sell their shares. I’d imagine that someone like Gordon Scott wouldn’t be too happy though!

With regards the CIC concept itself I’m staying out of the debate as you just end up getting abuse thrown at you unless you support the CIC in its entirety. I’m quite happy for the likes of yourself to lead the questioning! You’re doing a valiant job of it!

[Tracy Barlow Loyal]

I can’t see how anyone can personally have benefitted from the deal so far.

Tesco agreed to build an SPL compliant stadium for St. Mirren plus pay a sum of money to the club, St. Mirren FC Ltd.

That sum of money hasn’t gone to any shareholders, its all been used to pay off debts (including loans made to the club by directors) and for work at the training complex.

Everything has been reported in the Report & Accounts which have been audited.

The only way the selling consortium can make any money from the Tesco deal, as far as I can see, is if they can sell their shares for a profit. And even then, as I mentioned in an earlier post, any profit would need to take into account the interest they will have paid on any borrowings they had to make to buy the shares in the first place plus all the hours of unpaid work they undertook whilst working on the deal.

Again, I am taking no sides here. I own some of the 48% of shares that will effectively become worthless should the CIC offer (or indeed other offer) go through. I actually therefore have a vested interest in the selling consortium failing to sell their shares to anyone. In effect they will make a profit at my expense. However, I recognise that they are the ones that put their own money at risk and did the work to make it happen. If they hadn’t done so then my shares would have been worthless anyway! Therefore I’m not too miffed if the selling consortium sell their shares. I’d imagine that someone like Gordon Scott wouldn’t be too happy though!

With regards the CIC concept itself I’m staying out of the debate as you just end up getting abuse thrown at you unless you support the CIC in its entirety. I’m quite happy for the likes of yourself to lead the questioning! You’re doing a valiant job of it!

I see you're using the same script as "Yul Brynner". You're secret is safe with me.

[Stuart Dickson]

Anyway...yes...apparently so and it's a great shame.

[Guest somner9]

I can’t see how anyone can personally have benefitted from the deal so far.

Tesco agreed to build an SPL compliant stadium for St. Mirren plus pay a sum of money to the club, St. Mirren FC Ltd.

That sum of money hasn’t gone to any shareholders, its all been used to pay off debts (including loans made to the club by directors) and for work at the training complex.

Everything has been reported in the Report & Accounts which have been audited.

The only way the selling consortium can make any money from the Tesco deal, as far as I can see, is if they can sell their shares for a profit. And even then, as I mentioned in an earlier post, any profit would need to take into account the interest they will have paid on any borrowings they had to make to buy the shares in the first place plus all the hours of unpaid work they undertook whilst working on the deal.

Again, I am taking no sides here. I own some of the 48% of shares that will effectively become worthless should the CIC offer (or indeed other offer) go through. I actually therefore have a vested interest in the selling consortium failing to sell their shares to anyone. In effect they will make a profit at my expense. However, I recognise that they are the ones that put their own money at risk and did the work to make it happen. If they hadn’t done so then my shares would have been worthless anyway! Therefore I’m not too miffed if the selling consortium sell their shares. I’d imagine that someone like Gordon Scott wouldn’t be too happy though!

With regards the CIC concept itself I’m staying out of the debate as you just end up getting abuse thrown at you unless you support the CIC in its entirety. I’m quite happy for the likes of yourself to lead the questioning! You’re doing a valiant job of it!

Here's a hypothetical situation to consider if you will:

A sports! club decide to sell their ground to a developer, with the ultimate objective of building a better ground from the proceeds of the sale.

The actual fee the developer pays is never publicly known as those monies are paid to a holding company formed with the sole purpose of brokering and handling the deal.

An amount of money is paid to the sports club by the holding company which is sufficent to enable the sports club to commision the build and service the outstanding debt and loans it has accrued.

this amount will appear in the accounts for the sports club and will stack up on the balance sheet showing perhaps a small surplus or deficit.

The original fee paid to the holding company however is not part of the sports club accounts and as such is not reported on in these accounts. The holding company as brokers take on the responsibility for meeting any "Disbursements" relating to the deal and make good on these with the parties concerned.

You may ask why would the sports club need a Holding company? Indeed you may ask

[Bud the Baker]

You may ask why would the sports club need a Holding company? Indeed you may ask

Erm, the holding company took over the debt the club owed to Barr Construction and were repaying at £15k per month. The club then used the savings to fund the two planning applications (Greenhill Rd. & Love St.) which were quoted as having cost £250K to ensure the ground move.

Edited November 15, 2011 by Bud the Baker

[bud77]

I can’t see how anyone can personally have benefitted from the deal so far.

Tesco agreed to build an SPL compliant stadium for St. Mirren plus pay a sum of money to the club, St. Mirren FC Ltd.

That sum of money hasn’t gone to any shareholders, its all been used to pay off debts (including loans made to the club by directors) and for work at the training complex.

Everything has been reported in the Report & Accounts which have been audited.

The only way the selling consortium can make any money from the Tesco deal, as far as I can see, is if they can sell their shares for a profit. And even then, as I mentioned in an earlier post, any profit would need to take into account the interest they will have paid on any borrowings they had to make to buy the shares in the first place plus all the hours of unpaid work they undertook whilst working on the deal.

Again, I am taking no sides here. I own some of the 48% of shares that will effectively become worthless should the CIC offer (or indeed other offer) go through. I actually therefore have a vested interest in the selling consortium failing to sell their shares to anyone. In effect they will make a profit at my expense. However, I recognise that they are the ones that put their own money at risk and did the work to make it happen. If they hadn’t done so then my shares would have been worthless anyway! Therefore I’m not too miffed if the selling consortium sell their shares. I’d imagine that someone like Gordon Scott wouldn’t be too happy though!

With regards the CIC concept itself I’m staying out of the debate as you just end up getting abuse thrown at you unless you support the CIC in its entirety. I’m quite happy for the likes of yourself to lead the questioning! You’re doing a valiant job of it!

Didn't I read somewhere that the board haven't taken any remuneration from the club for years so in effect all the work they have done for the club has been free ? If that's the case then I don't think we can have a grudge against the board members making a profit from either the sale of Love Street or the sale of their shares, after all the club has been well run, is in good financial condition, has a custom built stadium and proper training facilities. My own opinion is that any personal profit that might have been gained from the sale of Love Street would have been very small considering the facilities we now have.

[The Silent Majority]

Here's a hypothetical situation to consider if you will:

A sports! club decide to sell their ground to a developer, with the ultimate objective of building a better ground from the proceeds of the sale.

The actual fee the developer pays is never publicly known as those monies are paid to a holding company formed with the sole purpose of brokering and handling the deal.

An amount of money is paid to the sports club by the holding company which is sufficent to enable the sports club to commision the build and service the outstanding debt and loans it has accrued.

this amount will appear in the accounts for the sports club and will stack up on the balance sheet showing perhaps a small surplus or deficit.

The original fee paid to the holding company however is not part of the sports club accounts and as such is not reported on in these accounts. The holding company as brokers take on the responsibility for meeting any "Disbursements" relating to the deal and make good on these with the parties concerned.

You may ask why would the sports club need a Holding company? Indeed you may ask

I think BTB answered this. The holding company was in respect of a loan to the club which payed off Bill Barr - this is well documented in all Reports & Accounts along with details of the interest rates, etc.

From my reading of the Report & Accounts, the asset that was sold - St. Mirren Park - was owned by St. Mirren FC Ltd and was sold by St. Mirren FC Ltd with all the proceeds coming only to St. Mirren FC Ltd. If any deal was done through a holding company then it would have had to be shown in the Report & Accounts. There is no mention of a deal being done with a holding company.

In addition, the Clydesdale Bank had their debt secured on St. Mirren Park.

I doubt very much it would have been possible to sneak the ownership of St. Mirren Park over to a holding company without the shareholders, accountants, auditors and bankers noticing!

Tesco paid St. Mirren FC Ltd and St. Mirren FC Ltd then used the money to repay debtors, including the holding company that had lent the club money to pay off Bill Barr. That is my reading of the Report & Accounts.

I get a copy of the Report & Accounts every year - as do many other folk on this forum - and the deal was as I have stated above. Its all in black & white and available to the public.

If a deal had been done through a holding company owned by the directors then the interest of the directors in that holding comapny would have had to been declared in the Accounts. I can't see anything along those lines.

If you can quote something from the Report & Accounts of St. Mirren FC Ltd or the holding company you mention which proves what you are saying then please feel free.

Edited November 14, 2011 by The Silent Majority