The Silent Majority Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 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. I totally agree. As I mentioned earlier, I own some of the 48% shares so any deal that is done renders my shares worthless. However, they would have been worthless had all the work not been done. As far as I am concerned they are quite right to try and get something back from it all. However, I'm not sure Gordon Scott would agree and I'm not endorsing the CIC! I'm on the fence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Read the posts again. The claim was the the BOD's profited directly from the Tesco/Love Street sale transaction, nothing to do with the loans. the lenders got their money back with the appropriate interest, they were due payment and all debts were paid, the lenders were board members. i assume what you mean is not all the board members were lenders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 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 would ignore davidg's comment if i were you mate, i reckon he's just itching to delete posts to show that he's a mod and he has power,in fact his post is inflammatory and he needs to be brought down a peg or two by those who mod him, he's actually insinuating you may have committed a crime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Some belting posts being made on this thread whilst I have been away.....every one of them nonsense. Why you dafties can't just pick up the phone and speak to the club rather than feeding on pub gossip is beyond belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Feegie Saint Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 i would ignore davidg's comment if i were you mate, i reckon he's just itching to delete posts to show that he's a mod and he has power,in fact his post is inflammatory and he needs to be brought down a peg or two by those who mod him, he's actually insinuating you may have committed a crime Following Orders I Believe ?, David leave The Legal Side alone and Stick to what you are Good At ? I deserved my wee slap on The Wrist ? You where perfectly right , But to issue a Public Warning on This Forum, Was exactlly The Censorship I was on about ? I appreciate The job you are trying to Do without any Financial gane ( unlike Others ) ? Theirs a Cat amongst The Pigeons on this Forum ? You Do a Great Job m8 - Keep it up ? We widnae huv a Forum without the Lad.s Who have to Moderate ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracy Barlow Loyal Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Theirs a Cat amongst The Pigeons on this Forum ? Who is it?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Who is it?! Its busy choking the chicken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktf Posted November 14, 2011 Report Share Posted November 14, 2011 Its busy choking the chicken. Polishing the Bishop... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 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. TSM my post talks of a Hypothetical situation with an unamed Sports Club! You have given a very eloquent run down of practice, proceedure and accounts of a named football club around the time they were involved in a multi-million pound transaction. Just so we are clear! my example is hypothetical, that said. No one that i know including me has any issue with the BoD or selling consortium of SMFC having had their loans etc! repaid, they put in money that kept the club afloat... end of: The hypothetical example involving a holding company, where said company deals with the sports club will be and is recorded in the Sports club accounts. However all the activities of said holding company are not documented in the sports club accounts, if for example it retained the services of "Consultants" paid off short term loans for issues pertaining to the new build etc... Bear in mind it's not difficult to get someone to be on the BoD of any company you wish to set up, if you'd rather not be a BoD member of said company yourself. anyway it's boring the cr*p out of me now, and most likely many others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) I would say these are potentially defamatory posts. I'll give you a chance to back up your comments before deleting them (for your own good btw). i would ignore davidg's comment if i were you mate, i reckon he's just itching to delete posts to show that he's a mod and he has power,in fact his post is inflammatory and he needs to be brought down a peg or two by those who mod him, he's actually insinuating you may have committed a crime Eh, no. There have been a few posts in the last year or so about board members "lining their pockets" which everyone has been reminded is unacceptable on this forum. I said the posts were "potentially defamatory" and wanted to know what our fellow buddie was getting at. Somner has explained and I'm more than happy that this wasn't the route he was going down, hence the reason they have not been deleted. I felt it just needed some clarification, which we've more than had. Edited November 15, 2011 by davidg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Just so we are clear! my example is hypothetical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 D'ya like that? bit like the home secretary saying "let me absolutely clear" then being absolutely unclear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktf Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 D'ya like that? bit like the home secretary saying "let me absolutely clear" then being absolutely unclear Out of all of the coalition politicians, Theresa May is the one I cany stand the most Zero redeeming features... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Out of all of the coalition politicians, Theresa May is the one I cany stand the most Zero redeeming features... Are you sure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktf Posted November 15, 2011 Report Share Posted November 15, 2011 Are you sure? Ooh! Ya kinky bugger! Disny dae it fir me, but I can see that it wid fir some Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Are you sure? Bet she has a Camel's toe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Ooh! Ya kinky bugger! Disny dae it fir me, but I can see that it wid fir some I'd appreciate it, if you'd stop referring to me as 'some'! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted November 16, 2011 Report Share Posted November 16, 2011 Bet she has a Camel's toe... If she does then so be it. C'est la vie, que sera sera etc..................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 So here we are, a number of weeks on from the original "CIC is dead" thread opening......after much promises of press conferences and false dawns for the ultra secretive alleged McGeoch bid there has been absolutely no information from the club or the CIC or the club or more importantly the McGeoch consortium to support the unfounded rumours. Whilst posting made up pub rumours we have seen allegations against the club and the usual attempts to undo the JD Sports deal and to stop people from visiting the Saints shop and buying merchandise, which will of course cost the club and the playing budget in the end - perhaps even cost jobs in the process. And still not a single fact produced to date. It would seem some people are happy to damage the club based on gut feel and big sulks. It is one thing to have a view on the CIC or the consortium. Trying to damage the operations of our club on the back of the rumoured uncertainty of our future is disgraceful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 So here we are, a number of weeks on from the original "CIC is dead" thread opening......after much promises of press conferences and false dawns for the ultra secretive alleged McGeoch bid there has been absolutely no information from the club or the CIC or the club or more importantly the McGeoch consortium to support the unfounded rumours. Whilst posting made up pub rumours we have seen allegations against the club and the usual attempts to undo the JD Sports deal and to stop people from visiting the Saints shop and buying merchandise, which will of course cost the club and the playing budget in the end - perhaps even cost jobs in the process. And still not a single fact produced to date. It would seem some people are happy to damage the club based on gut feel and big sulks. It is one thing to have a view on the CIC or the consortium. Trying to damage the operations of our club on the back of the rumoured uncertainty of our future is disgraceful. Sid, it's only a few salient comments on the forum of an obscure fans website: it's not BBC headline news bombshells. How can these posts possibly damage the club's operations? The various inefficiencies of merchandising that have been highlighted and the lack of information of the CIC's progress are what could be damaging to the club's operations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickMcD Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 So here we are, a number of weeks on from the original "CIC is dead" thread opening......after much promises of press conferences and false dawns for the ultra secretive alleged McGeoch bid there has been absolutely no information from the club or the CIC or the club or more importantly the McGeoch consortium to support the unfounded rumours. Whilst posting made up pub rumours we have seen allegations against the club and the usual attempts to undo the JD Sports deal and to stop people from visiting the Saints shop and buying merchandise, which will of course cost the club and the playing budget in the end - perhaps even cost jobs in the process. And still not a single fact produced to date. It would seem some people are happy to damage the club based on gut feel and big sulks. It is one thing to have a view on the CIC or the consortium. Trying to damage the operations of our club on the back of the rumoured uncertainty of our future is disgraceful. I've said before I don't have a strong view one way or another. I was late into any discussion and despite having read everything I can I'm still not completely clear how the whole damn thing is supposed to operate. Some posters seem two-faced about the whole process. (I was going to say ambivalent but I was feart I'd get accused of using big words like what Bluto does). blf started this thread on the 11th, of October. The CIC must be aware that the discussion is getting nearly to crescendo level. And yet, stony silence. If nothing else it's a PR disaster. I'm amazed there haven't been a stack of folk asking for their direct debits back. Some of the posters have said they feel that only pro CIC posters are welcome and although that's clearly not true I do sense an almost schoolmasterish attitude suggesting ' we know better than you so wrap up!' Some of the posters hint at a level of insider knowledge and if that's true it's a disgrace. There are I think 800 plus St.Mirren fans out there who have pledged to help the club and they're not even getting the mushroom treatment. They're being kept in the dark all right but they're not even getting fed shite. They're being starved of information. Sid, you've said the fans should pick up the phone and speak to the club. They shouldn't have to. You also said today. 'Not a single fact produced to date.' That's very true of the CIC. It's generally agreed that if the CIC is dead it's not a death knell for St.Mirren. For goodness sake let's hear something and stop suggesting it all has to be a state secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 I've said before I don't have a strong view one way or another. I was late into any discussion and despite having read everything I can I'm still not completely clear how the whole damn thing is supposed to operate. Some posters seem two-faced about the whole process. (I was going to say ambivalent but I was feart I'd get accused of using big words like what Bluto does). blf started this thread on the 11th, of October. The CIC must be aware that the discussion is getting nearly to crescendo level. And yet, stony silence. If nothing else it's a PR disaster. I'm amazed there haven't been a stack of folk asking for their direct debits back. Some of the posters have said they feel that only pro CIC posters are welcome and although that's clearly not true I do sense an almost schoolmasterish attitude suggesting ' we know better than you so wrap up!' Some of the posters hint at a level of insider knowledge and if that's true it's a disgrace. There are I think 800 plus St.Mirren fans out there who have pledged to help the club and they're not even getting the mushroom treatment. They're being kept in the dark all right but they're not even getting fed shite. They're being starved of information. Sid, you've said the fans should pick up the phone and speak to the club. They shouldn't have to. You also said today. 'Not a single fact produced to date.' That's very true of the CIC. It's generally agreed that if the CIC is dead it's not a death knell for St.Mirren. For goodness sake let's hear something and stop suggesting it all has to be a state secret. V Good post Rick McD! The issue I fear has become somewhat conflated (To quote an ex civil servant). I haven't heard many posters if any say they are against a "Community Interest Company"! I include myself in that, although I did see additional benefits to becoming a IPS (Co-op). No, the people who are opposed! are opposed to 10000 Hours, Rea, Mr kibbles etc... not a Cic! big difference. One can deliver significant benefits to a community, the other bums itself up, seeks power and influence, approaches deals backwards, then goes underground when it's obvious they can't deliver a fraction of what they promised. People like St sid suggesting that if you don't want Rea making a laughing stock of your club you are damaging it have hit desperate measures in attempt to get someone to back their stance. If 10000 hours/Rea could have done a fraction of what they said they could, and also what they assured us was in the bag, (95% done, days from completion etc, etc,) if they could have done it, it would have been done by now. They are amateurs who tried to buy a controlling interest in an SPL club with other people's money and to no one's surprise it seems the funders said "Gonnae no dae that!" The selling consortium have to take responsibility because clearly their due dilligence as to the where with all of 10000 hours must have been flawed. things that sound and look to good to be true generally are, and 10000 hours claims were. I expect 10000 hours have either agreed to or just cleared off without issuing a statement, which will enable the selling consortium and the other BoD members and large shareholder concerned to announce at the AGM "the 10000 hour proposal dead!" and in a heart beat say "But look we've agreed a deal with A.N. Other so no worries" So no we are not against Community Interest Companies, thing is we never had one, and bear in mind, nor were we allowed to have any real discussion as to the make up of one! Unlike Rea we have done and always will support SMFC till we die! And now perhaps we can put this sideshow on the road back to Ayrshire with the other "Shows" and get pumped right into the Pars shaky defence this weekend! Saint mirren till I die!...... I could sing that 10000 times easy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil_Panda Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 V Good post Rick McD! The issue I fear has become somewhat conflated (To quote an ex civil servant). I haven't heard many posters if any say they are against a "Community Interest Company"! I include myself in that, although I did see additional benefits to becoming a IPS (Co-op). No, the people who are opposed! are opposed to 10000 Hours, Rea, Mr kibbles etc... not a Cic! big difference. One can deliver significant benefits to a community, the other bums itself up, seeks power and influence, approaches deals backwards, then goes underground when it's obvious they can't deliver a fraction of what they promised. People like St sid suggesting that if you don't want Rea making a laughing stock of your club you are damaging it have hit desperate measures in attempt to get someone to back their stance. If 10000 hours/Rea could have done a fraction of what they said they could, and also what they assured us was in the bag, (95% done, days from completion etc, etc,) if they could have done it, it would have been done by now. They are amateurs who tried to buy a controlling interest in an SPL club with other people's money and to no one's surprise it seems the funders said "Gonnae no dae that!" The selling consortium have to take responsibility because clearly their due dilligence as to the where with all of 10000 hours must have been flawed. things that sound and look to good to be true generally are, and 10000 hours claims were. I expect 10000 hours have either agreed to or just cleared off without issuing a statement, which will enable the selling consortium and the other BoD members and large shareholder concerned to announce at the AGM "the 10000 hour proposal dead!" and in a heart beat say "But look we've agreed a deal with A.N. Other so no worries" So no we are not against Community Interest Companies, thing is we never had one, and bear in mind, nor were we allowed to have any real discussion as to the make up of one! Unlike Rea we have done and always will support SMFC till we die! And now perhaps we can put this sideshow on the road back to Ayrshire with the other "Shows" and get pumped right into the Pars shaky defence this weekend! Saint mirren till I die!...... I could sing that 10000 times easy its still far too early to announce the CIC dead, although the complete lack of communication has done them no favours amongst the support on here. talking of which, talk from st.sid on here of posters destroying our club with their talk is a load of baws. just how much of the support do you think uses this site let alone is influenced by aliases on here? i dont know what the unique number of visitors to this site is, 10% of the average saturday gate? Incidently, if you think the lack of communication on here is poor from 10000 hours you should remember that the majority of st.mirren fans who dont spend their lives online are even further worse off. i know lifelong saints fans who dont have a clue who 10000 hours and have had no information whatsover except for one flyer handed out at a game some months ago. What happens to the commercial director should the cic fail to go through? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo57 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 V Good post Rick McD! The issue I fear has become somewhat conflated (To quote an ex civil servant). I haven't heard many posters if any say they are against a "Community Interest Company"! I include myself in that, although I did see additional benefits to becoming a IPS (Co-op). No, the people who are opposed! are opposed to 10000 Hours, Rea, Mr kibbles etc... not a Cic! big difference. One can deliver significant benefits to a community, the other bums itself up, seeks power and influence, approaches deals backwards, then goes underground when it's obvious they can't deliver a fraction of what they promised. People like St sid suggesting that if you don't want Rea making a laughing stock of your club you are damaging it have hit desperate measures in attempt to get someone to back their stance. If 10000 hours/Rea could have done a fraction of what they said they could, and also what they assured us was in the bag, (95% done, days from completion etc, etc,) if they could have done it, it would have been done by now. They are amateurs who tried to buy a controlling interest in an SPL club with other people's money and to no one's surprise it seems the funders said "Gonnae no dae that!" The selling consortium have to take responsibility because clearly their due dilligence as to the where with all of 10000 hours must have been flawed. things that sound and look to good to be true generally are, and 10000 hours claims were. I expect 10000 hours have either agreed to or just cleared off without issuing a statement, which will enable the selling consortium and the other BoD members and large shareholder concerned to announce at the AGM "the 10000 hour proposal dead!" and in a heart beat say "But look we've agreed a deal with A.N. Other so no worries" So no we are not against Community Interest Companies, thing is we never had one, and bear in mind, nor were we allowed to have any real discussion as to the make up of one! Unlike Rea we have done and always will support SMFC till we die! And now perhaps we can put this sideshow on the road back to Ayrshire with the other "Shows" and get pumped right into the Pars shaky defence this weekend! Saint mirren till I die!...... I could sing that 10000 times easy Que Sera Sera Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted November 17, 2011 Report Share Posted November 17, 2011 Que Sera Sera Thanks for re-Posting Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.