Yul's Back

[St. Sid]

If it's a co-op (IPS) then the membership have the greatest possible influence as it's one member, one vote, therby giving the opportunity to de-select any board member/s not coming up to scratch/looking after number one.

This isnt the case with a CiC as once the exec board are in they can do pretty much what they want among themselves! (Doesn't look great considering 10000 hours want you to foot the bill for them)

I see you have deflected the question regarding assigning the stadium to cover borrowing.....I thought you wanted open discussion?

[jens]

I think the main problem anyone buying the club is going to have is that everyone is actually very happy with the guys who are sitting in the boardroom at the minute.

It's not like we are desperate to get shot of them, they have performed miracles, they are "safe" and they are all St.Mirren people.

So on that backdrop anyone coming in is going to be instantly treated with suspicion as to what they are all about and what their intentions are for the club. I imagine that is partly why the club is still for sale as the board are probably in the same boat, they obviously don't just want to sell and run away.

We are in a unique position in Scottish Football and very well placed to take advantage of the precarious nature of the other clubs in the SPL who are in an awful financial mess. It's important that the sale of the club doesn't get in the way of that IMO.

We have heard that KMG is interested. He was part of the consortium back when SG took over and has been part of the board "everyone is very happy with".

[div]

Indeed, but who else is he proposing to come in with and why has it taken two years for them to declare an interest ?

I'd love to hear more about this other bid and what it entails.

[ktf]

And he is currently part of the set up that has no debt. If he becomes the major player in that, will it still be the case that there is none...?

[St. Sid]

We have heard that KMG is interested. He was part of the consortium back when SG took over and has been part of the board "everyone is very happy with".

A question that has never really been addressed is why KMG needs to be the owner of the club. I asked similar questions of GLS when his bid was falsely being splashed across the Internet as the "alternative". GLS recognised that he would be able to play a role in the CIC and it is better to be in it than out of it. I would be surprised if fans ignored KMG's contribution to the club and wouldn't want him involved in the CIC. KMG appears to want sole power over the domain of SMFC - why when he is a supporter would he be against a community owned club?

If he believes that his option is better for the club then why hasn't KMG told the fans why it is better, or why the CIC is wrong for the club. Perhaps his bid is a fallback position in case the CIC doesn't progress and it is all good.

However, as it stands the only influence fans have at the moment is on the CIC and that should be our only consideration. Do we want the CIC to progress based on its merits or not? The hoo-hah about alternative bids has been nothing more than a disruptive side show to date.

[Guest somner9]

Can someone tell me, if a CIC/Co-Operative type syndicate takes over, is it absolutely impossible for anyone to assign the stadium to cover borrowing?

Short answer to your second part there is no! Unless that is enshrined in the constitution of the Co-op or Cic. With a cic it is impossible to strip assets to sell on, but nothing stopping anyone borrowing against the assets, and like any company (co-op) it can go bust if poorly managed.

Fixed it for you sid, let me know if you are struggling with any more of the technical/big word stuff

[Guest somner9]

A question that has never really been addressed is why KMG needs to be the owner of the club. I asked similar questions of GLS when his bid was falsely being splashed across the Internet as the "alternative". GLS recognised that he would be able to play a role in the CIC and it is better to be in it than out of it. I would be surprised if fans ignored KMG's contribution to the club and wouldn't want him involved in the CIC. KMG appears to want sole power over the domain of SMFC - why when he is a supporter would he be against a community owned club?

If he believes that his option is better for the club then why hasn't KMG told the fans why it is better, or why the CIC is wrong for the club. Perhaps his bid is a fallback position in case the CIC doesn't progress and it is all good.

However, as it stands the only influence fans have at the moment is on the CIC and that should be our only consideration. Do we want the CIC to progress based on its merits or not? The hoo-hah about alternative bids has been nothing more than a disruptive side show to date.

Thought you wanted an open debate? Where are these statements from KMcG regarding being against a CiC? And the one about him being against a community owned club has slipped me by too!

naughty, naughty steak&kidley

[RickMcD]

Short answer to your second part there is no! Unless that is enshrined in the constitution of the Co-op or Cic. With a cic it is impossible to strip assets to sell on, but nothing stopping anyone borrowing against the assets, and like any company (co-op) it can go bust if poorly managed.

Fixed it for you sid, let me know if you are struggling with any more of the technical/big word stuff

Well that's OK, if the CIC goes ahead we'll have to make sure it is enshrined. With the fan involvement that is promised there should be no difficulty.

[ktf]

Well that's OK, if the CIC goes ahead we'll have to make sure it is enshrined. With the fan involvement that is promised there should be no difficulty.

Spot on Rick. Somner9 and others like him (scottd for example) prefers a "bid" that the "bidders" have been silent about for some reason, no-one knows the details of how it will be funded, there have been no meetings about, no information released, no promise of fan involvement, no means of asset-locking, no guarantee of unpaid board members or fan governance, no way of knowing whether the club assets will be used as security, no clue who is involved and no way of knowing whether revenue will be increased or gates will improve and no obvious route to get the community involved with the club.

And he reckons the CiC hasn't released enough information...

[Guest somner9]

Spot on Rick. Somner9 and others like him (scottd for example) prefers a "bid" that the "bidders" have been silent about for some reason, no-one knows the details of how it will be funded, there have been no meetings about, no information released, no promise of fan involvement, no means of asset-locking, no guarantee of unpaid board members or fan governance, no way of knowing whether the club assets will be used as security, no clue who is involved and no way of knowing whether revenue will be increased or gates will improve and no obvious route to get the community involved with the club.

And he reckons the CiC hasn't released enough information...

lets start with the main point here! you know absolutely nothing about any bid other than the failed Cic bid. Partly because as yet there hasn't been any other bid!!! and subsequently no other meetings or issues of information as there has been no other bid as yet to discuss!

Can you show me anywhere on these boards where I have backed any bid? Or even any expressed interest? I'll save you a wee bit of time it doesn't exist...

But I do believe and always did that 10000 hours bid was wrong and did little other than pay lip service to PROPER fan/community involvement, with a non existent detailed plan as to how they would generate additional revenue to pay off their debt. Seems at least a third of the funders saw past the fur coat too

Now when/if another bid is tabled i'll be as ruthless at getting to the detail with that as I was with the 10000 hours car-crash, and I'll neither support nor decry it until I've been able to examine the information provided.

My mind is open to information, when it's provided

[div]

Seems at least a third of the funders saw past the fur coat too

If you read this article in the Herald you will see that was not the case;

I T probably says more about the state of Scottish football than it does about St Mirren that the club remains on the market more than two years after a group of directors first put it up for sale.

On the face of it, it looks a fairly enticing investment opportunity: the Paisley outfit are relatively debt-free, have a new stadium, their own training ground, an ambitious young manager, and a place in the top half of the Clydesdale Bank Premier League. The non-negotiable asking price for a 52% majority shareholding is £2m – not a pittance, admittedly, but still less than Celtic paid for Mohamed Bangura and only slightly more than Rangers shelled out to land Lee Wallace.

That chairman Stewart Gilmour and his selling consortium have not yet found someone willing to take the club off their hands would, therefore, seem to be more a reflection of the league as a whole, and the unlikeliness that any would-be investor would one day see a return for his or her money, than the club itself. In those circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the takeover proposal that has come closest to fruition over the past 26 months was one a world away from traditional business models.

The brainchild of Richard Atkinson, an Ayrshire businessman with an interest in social enterprise projects, the basic premise was that a Community Interest Company (CIC) would source the funding required to buy the club through a combination of grants and soft loans, and then monthly financial contributions from supporters, local businesses, and charities would be used to pay that money back.

In return these diverse groups would be given a direct say in the running of the club, while there would also be greater interaction between St Mirren and the surrounding community. The club itself would incur no debt. More than 800 people signed up to the concept, the funding was secured from a number of sources and the deal, the first of its kind on such a grand scale, seemed set to go through. But, just as Gilmour and Atkinson were set to shake hands, a problem arose that the CIC, 10,000 Hours, were unable to remedy. The final hurdle that Atkinson referred to in recent months could simply not be cleared.

“It’s just unfortunate that one of the funders has not been able to help us in this process,” Atkinson told Herald Sport. “We got the full amount of funding approved by the various credit committees but when committees approve these things, they do so with conditions. One of the funds had four conditions attached and we were able to resolve three of them.

“The final condition was the responsibility of an outside agency to either approve or decline. And after many more weeks than we had expected, that outside agency came back with a rejection of that last condition. That meant the funder involved had to withdraw their backing, even though at independent committee credit level the funding had been approved. We are now in a position, therefore, with the support of the other funders, where we are investigating the feasibility of an alternative project. There are no guarantees that will work but it’s not dead yet.”

Atkinson has not been left too disheartened by the failure of the project – in its original guise – and will meet with interested parties next week to see if there is an appetite for a revamped model, possibly along the lines of Motherwell’s recent conversion to an Industrial and Provident Society. He is hopeful that the funders who agreed to support the original CIC proposal will be just as enthusiastic for any potential phase two, and that, if required, a greater number of members will pledge their support.

“Our main belief behind the process was about supporter governance and community ownership and we still believe in that,” Atkinson added. “It is the only sustainable model for a football club, in our opinion. We will carry on to see if we can adjust our proposition to see if it’s still feasible. We’re hoping the meeting next week will discuss two things: what went wrong and what have we learned from it, and what is the way forward, if there is one. Motherwell look set to achieve their target of £750,000 with a slightly different model and proposition so maybe we can learn something from that. It’s not a case of starting over from scratch, there will be many aspects we hope we can carry over.”

The consortium insist the drawn-out process of trying to sell the club has not affected day- to-day business – manager Danny Lennon is expected to sign a new deal later this week, for example – and are still hopeful that a community buy-out, in whatever form, can one day be concluded.

“It has been unfortunate that the CIC has been unable to complete its deal however there is still interest from both the CIC and other parties in obtaining control of St Mirren,” said Gilmour. “I still believe it’s the right thing for the fans and the community to own and govern the club.”

Gilmour, though, would not rule out the prospect of selling to other would-be bidders. Two other parties, including one fronted by director Ken McGeoch, have expressed an interest in buying the club, although details of any proposals are sketchy at best. “If somebody else comes along, makes an offer that’s acceptable to those that are selling it, that might be what happens,” the chairman added.

Source

So the CIC passed all of the due diligence processes put in place by the funders, but was scuppered by an "outside agency".

I wonder who that was ?

[pozbaird]

Agendas, outside agencies, miscreants, online aliases, whispering campaigns, rumour and counter rumour..... everything that I detest. I might be many things, but I play with a straight bat in life, and online. I have no idea who did what to whom or why, other forum users may be more 'in the know' than I am, or choose to be. If it isn't explained at the meeting exactly why the initial CIC plan failed - then there's a problem. That should be the first thing on the agenda, and no messing around either. 805 individual pledgers deserve a straight and full answer.

[div]

Agendas, outside agencies, miscreants, online aliases, whispering campaigns, rumour and counter rumour..... everything that I detest. I might be many things, but I play with a straight bat in life, and online. I have no idea who did what to whom or why, other forum users may be more 'in the know' than I am, or choose to be. If it isn't explained at the meeting exactly why the initial CIC plan failed - then there's a problem. That should be the first thing on the agenda, and no messing around either. 805 individual pledgers deserve a straight and full answer.

All of the confidentiality restraints will have been removed. I expect it to be warts and all on Wednesday.

Bring some popcorn ginger nut !

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

100% correct Pozbaird

[jens]

Short answer to your second part there is no! Unless that is enshrined in the constitution of the Co-op or Cic. With a cic it is impossible to strip assets to sell on, but nothing stopping anyone borrowing against the assets, and like any company (co-op) it can go bust if poorly managed.

Fixed it for you sid, let me know if you are struggling with any more of the technical/big word stuff

That's what I don't understand. Reading about the 'asset lock', assets CAN be sold: stadium and players, just like any other business. But what can't happen is the money to leave through dividends etc. So we could sell the stadium for market value, and spend the proceeds on new players. That would be deemed OK, according to what I read last night online.

[Guest somner9]

If you read this article in the Herald you will see that was not the case;

Source

So the CIC passed all of the due diligence processes put in place by the funders, but was scuppered by an "outside agency".

I wonder who that was ?

Ok a third of the Funding

[pozbaird]

All of the confidentiality restraints will have been removed. I expect it to be warts and all on Wednesday.

Bring some popcorn ginger nut !

No worries baldy, I'm looking forward to it. Better than the soap operas on the telly.

[div]

That's what I don't understand. Reading about the 'asset lock', assets CAN be sold: stadium and players, just like any other business. But what can't happen is the money to leave through dividends etc. So we could sell the stadium for market value, and spend the proceeds on new players. That would be deemed OK, according to what I read last night online.

Yes the stadium could be sold, but only if the CIC agreed to sell it.

The CIC = The supporters

So, if the fans decided to sell the stadium, they could do so. The funds raised by any sale however could not leave the CIC.

The theory will all of the CIC stuff is that the people who care most about the club are the guys who follow the team all over the country and who pay their hard earned cash to back the team through thick and thin. These are the guys who would do almost anything they could to protect the club and the team.

Most of these guys would never have the personal wealth to get involved directly with the running of the club.

The CIC model, and the IPS models, allow them to do just that for a very modest financial investment compared to what it would take to get them a seat on the board in the more traditional model.

eg; I am pretty sure GLS invested £100k or so to get on the board initially. The CIC was offering this chance for £10 a month.

Ergo, safe.

[jens]

Yes the stadium could be sold, but only if the CIC agreed to sell it.

The CIC = The supporters

So, if the fans decided to sell the stadium, they could do so. The funds raised by any sale however could not leave the CIC.

The theory will all of the CIC stuff is that the people who care most about the club are the guys who follow the team all over the country and who pay their hard earned cash to back the team through thick and thin. These are the guys who would do almost anything they could to protect the club and the team.

Most of these guys would never have the personal wealth to get involved directly with the running of the club.

The CIC model, and the IPS models, allow them to do just that for a very modest financial investment compared to what it would take to get them a seat on the board in the more traditional model.

eg; I am pretty sure GLS invested £100k or so to get on the board initially. The CIC was offering this chance for £10 a month.

Ergo, safe.

Would it be the fans or the elected board on behalf of the fans? If it were every member casting a vote then things would take a long time. Eg. Someone puts in a bid for Carey at the 11th hour on deadline day, who decides if he goes? Who decides if the price is enough?

If its the elected board, they could act with their best interests and get it wrong. Just like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron: they all want the best for the country but their views are different. The same could happen with the elected board. Who decides??

[reborn saint]

If you read this article in the Herald you will see that was not the case;

Source

So the CIC passed all of the due diligence processes put in place by the funders, but was scuppered by an "outside agency".

I wonder who that was ?

I have just read your post from the Herald and it sheds new light on the failure of the cic to complete the deal. It shows how complex the deal was and why the 1% tag was used instead of a 33% loss of funding. I feel sorry for both 10000hrs and my club as it to came down to a situation "outwith our control" which I couldn't understand at the time but now do. Roll on Wednesday ......We are too small to make a noise and are obviously fragmented on a cic . But for me the only question is who and why!

[scottd]

Spot on Rick. Somner9 and others like him (scottd for example) prefers a "bid" that the "bidders" have been silent about for some reason, no-one knows the details of how it will be funded, there have been no meetings about, no information released, no promise of fan involvement, no means of asset-locking, no guarantee of unpaid board members or fan governance, no way of knowing whether the club assets will be used as security, no clue who is involved and no way of knowing whether revenue will be increased or gates will improve and no obvious route to get the community involved with the club.

And he reckons the CiC hasn't released enough information...

Putting words into peoples mouths again. Not backing the 10000 Hours plan does not automatically mean that I support other 'bids' of which we know nothing. Obviously the calls for calm have not percolated through your cranium.

As it happens my opposition to 10000 Hours was based on the appearance of using fan 'power' to legitimise their position when in fact the power was almost certain to reside with the corporates like the Kibble guy.

[St. Sid]

Would it be the fans or the elected board on behalf of the fans? If it were every member casting a vote then things would take a long time. Eg. Someone puts in a bid for Carey at the 11th hour on deadline day, who decides if he goes? Who decides if the price is enough?

If its the elected board, they could act with their best interests and get it wrong. Just like Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron: they all want the best for the country but their views are different. The same could happen with the elected board. Who decides??

Good to see some proper discussion taking place at last. Divs article includes a potential game changer in terms of the "membership". It will be very interesting to hear what impact this has on the decision making at the club. The decision making process has never been clear enough for me. My current understanding of the previous structure was that the SMFC Board would be responsible for stuff like players contracts, etc. The SMFC Board would of course have a majority of "members" representatives acting as Directors.....so we would pretty much be making the decision. If anything the change to more of a co-op model may enhance the fans position at the club. This could be a very interesting development indeed.

[Stuart Dickson]

If the club follows the exact same ownership route that Motherwell are taking then there is little point in me giving £10 per month or whatever to St Mirren when I could be involved in a project that is more likely to support the community I live in.

It doesn't look like I'll be able to make it to the meeting on Wednesday - it was supposed to be a night off for me but it's looking increasingly likely that I'll need to work - but I'll be watching developments with an open mind. For me the one thing Motherwell weren't talking about at their meetings was exactly how fans ownership would guarantee benefits for the local community. Hopefully with 10000hours having done more work with community groups as was necessary in the CIC, they will be a bit more clear on how they see fans and community groups working together for progress rather than leave the way open for there to be conflicting short term goals.

[reborn saint]

If the club follows the exact same ownership route that Motherwell are taking then there is little point in me giving £10 per month or whatever to St Mirren when I could be involved in a project that is more likely to support the community I live in.

It doesn't look like I'll be able to make it to the meeting on Wednesday - it was supposed to be a night off for me but it's looking increasingly likely that I'll need to work - but I'll be watching developments with an open mind. For me the one thing Motherwell weren't talking about at their meetings was exactly how fans ownership would guarantee benefits for the local community. Hopefully with 10000hours having done more work with community groups as was necessary in the CIC, they will be a bit more clear on how they see fans and community groups working together for progress rather than leave the way open for there to be conflicting short term goals.

All credit to Motherwell.... as is mentioned in the Herald they are close to achieving their goal. No mean feat as £750,000 raised through fans is something to be proud of. I would be dissapointed if our new plan is anything less than a cic for the reasons Stu explains. Sounds like it might be and if so my financial support will be withdrawn as it offers nothing in the community that I signed up for.

[reborn saint]

E mail sounds like a cic.....hope so