Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
div

Important Update From 10000Hours

Recommended Posts


Or Div, Poz, or ahem, Yul.

Lots of trouble when three letter people appear on forums, well in one case anyway.

Whereas you know what you're getting with a good old-fashioned four letter word like me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the CIC remains the preferred bid from the selling consortium's POV then I suppose the big question is the missing money a loan or a grant?

If it's part of the portion that was to be repaid then I reckon that even in these hard times it'll be possible to secure a loan elsewhere, if it was part of the grant funding then the CIC bid is in a lot more trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the answer lies in the Board accepting the £1.3m still available at the moment, and "loaning" the balance of £700,000 with interest, over a number of years to the club or CIC. In effect The selling consortium loaning the money at a rate similar to what they might receive in a bank deposit account, say 2%, rather than the club or CIC borrowing from a Bank at extortionate present day rates of 5%,6%,7% or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the answer lies in the Board accepting the £1.3m still available at the moment, and "loaning" the balance of £700,000 with interest, over a number of years to the club or CIC. In effect The selling consortium loaning the money at a rate similar to what they might receive in a bank deposit account, say 2%, rather than the club or CIC borrowing from a Bank at extortionate present day rates of 5%,6%,7% or more.

There isn't a bank that would lend 10000Hours £700K so it's a moot point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There isn't a bank that would lend 10000Hours £700K so it's a moot point.

Not saying there is, Div, but the "loan" would be from the consortium, and if they were paid the £700,000 over say 10 years, with interest at what they would achieve putting the money in a high street bank, it would give them a commercial return on their money, but for the club would be much cheaper than "theoretically" borrowing the same amount from a bank at a much higher lending rate. i.e. equal return for the consortium if they were minded to invest the money in a bank account, cheaper option for club/CIC if they were in a position to borrow that amount = missing out the greedy middleman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about grant or loan for the denied 700K is a good one. If the money was a loan then does that open up the possibility of the consortium taking the 1.3 million and then accepting the 700K over the course of the 5 years or so? Could the other loan monies be structured so that the 700 K is paid at a greater pace.

I can't remember the exact figures, but was it not around 800K grants and the rest being loans. It does seem very possible that the 700K missing is a loan. I realise it means the consortium don't get their money up front, but it's not a case of definitely not getting it and the development of the model could realise funds earlier. Heck, it might even mean some mature voting and realism in order to gain long term prosperity. Not so long ago it was a case of "ach, you'll never get the ground sold...a new training complex is even less likely" or "I've been told from a reliable source it'll only have two stands", who's to say "CIC's are pish, they do nothing for the club" won't be just as lacking in truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are alot of better posters on here than me ....Div,,,Tsu...Poz...Somner and Scott.......But you are a wank 77 and everyone knows it.biggrin.png

And there lies the problem.

Anyone who dares disagree with the CIC is a wanker,trouble maker,anti St Mirren etc.

You are allowed an opinion only if you agree with the CIC.

PS.Feegie Saint was banned for comments like the one reborn uses above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there lies the problem.

Anyone who dares disagree with the CIC is a wanker,trouble maker,anti St Mirren etc.

You are allowed an opinion only if you agree with the CIC.

PS.Feegie Saint was banned for comments like the one reborn uses above.

Not that I can answer on behalf of the mods but Feegie Saint used homophobic and arguably racist comments on a lot of his previous posts. I think that was why he was banned.

And FWIW, there are those that are wanks on here! Some, and you know who, have (for whatever reason) launched a smear campaign against REA and the CiC generally. Those who tried to stick up for the man or the CiC notion, probably because they had taken the time to meet with him and discuss their concerns, we're accused of wanting a place on some sort of board.

With the exception of Somner9 every counter-CiC arguement has been along the lines of " he doesn't even run a company", "he's a dick", "you are an arselicker" or "there are no scarves".

The case levelled against those who are on the side of the CiC is that we just call those against names... However that is what that anti lot do too! The only difference is, we have bothered to look into it, go to them with our concerns and hear what they have to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who tried to stick up for the man or the CiC notion, probably because they had taken the time to meet with him and discuss their concerns, we're accused of wanting a place on some sort of board.

With the exception of Somner9 every counter-CiC arguement has been along the lines of " he doesn't even run a company", "he's a dick", "you are an arselicker" or "there are no scarves".

Purely from my own perspective......what about those who were not really for it, but were persuaded. I thought that was the whole idea of "persuading" the masses to sign up and get some momentum going?

It seemed like it wasn't allowed to have queries/criticisms, even if you were prepared to back the CIC. It came over from many posters that you had to be a hateful fanatic one way or the other.

I bothered to contact RA, and he replied to my questions on several occasions. It was much more reliable than Sid's information feed. Consequently, I became generally supportive of the CIC, yet still had some reservations (buying price; management structure). Both were outwith my control, but the pros outweighed the cons, mainly because of the "asset lock".

As for the "no scarves" - as far as I was concerned, it wasn't good enough that under RA's reign as Commercial Director, we have had a shambles of a club shop, and no online store. Not very helpful for FFFs.

Most know that AWP is a pal of mine, but even if (for example) Greaves had been in charge of such a state of affairs they would have been rightly slagged off for it. When it is being run by the guy heading up the CIC, then people were bound to raise an eyebrow Roger Moore-style. Defending it by saying "the JD Sports deal was worth much more" is missing the point: shirt/tat sales opportunities were missed every week, thus missing out on revenue above and beyond the JD deal.

Hopefully Div can get an online store sorted soon, as my in-laws need to be issued my annual Xmas list of "useless items with a crest on".

Ice scraper anyone ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are alot of better posters on here than me ....Div,,,Tsu...Poz...Somner and Scott.......But you are a wank 77 and everyone knows it.biggrin.png

I dont know what is choking me more, your smokescreen or the constant stream of bullshit you've been posting.

And there's no need to be so bitter, it was you who made yourself look like a tit, I only highlighted your ignorance.

To paraphrase a better poster than you, hope this skelps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about grant or loan for the denied 700K is a good one. If the money was a loan then does that open up the possibility of the consortium taking the 1.3 million and then accepting the 700K over the course of the 5 years or so? Could the other loan monies be structured so that the 700 K is paid at a greater pace.

I can't remember the exact figures, but was it not around 800K grants and the rest being loans. It does seem very possible that the 700K missing is a loan. I realise it means the consortium don't get their money up front, but it's not a case of definitely not getting it and the development of the model could realise funds earlier. Heck, it might even mean some mature voting and realism in order to gain long term prosperity. Not so long ago it was a case of "ach, you'll never get the ground sold...a new training complex is even less likely" or "I've been told from a reliable source it'll only have two stands", who's to say "CIC's are pish, they do nothing for the club" won't be just as lacking in truth.

I am pretty sure that the money that was given in grants could only be drawn down if the CIC actually secured all the other funding. All funding had to be confirmed before any could be released. The 700k was witheld so the rest of the money will also be witheld.

I think that would also affect the status of the CIC since it's aims would expand to cover wedging in the consortium.

Edited by spirit of 77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure that the money that was given in grants could only be drawn down if the CIC actually secured all the other funding. All funding had to be confirmed before any could be released. The 700k was witheld so the rest of the money will also be witheld.

I think that would also affect the status of the CIC since it's aims would expand to cover wedging in the consortium.

That was my understanding as well spirit of 77. All the other funding hinged on the largest funder going ahead and that if they didn't get that one the game was a bogey. This is one of the reasons I would like to see detail and specifics now rather than a powerpoint presentation. Let's see the rules of the game we are being asked to play in as the goalposts appear to be shifting. I do understand that it is an ambitious undertaking and things will change from time to time....but if this is not transparent then the credability is going to be on a par with my summer signing exclusives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the exception of Somner9 every counter-CiC arguement has been along the lines of " he doesn't even run a company", "he's a dick", "you are an arselicker" or "there are no scarves".

you'll have missed my post then:

I have a number of concerns still over the CIC, and they are mainly ones that cant be addressed without seeing the thing in action. Its a long post but appreciate any feedback.

1 – Bureaucracy – we are going to have 3 boards, SMFC Board, CIC Board, Exec Board. I understand the requirement of each but I also can see this becoming a very difficult set up to maintain without the CIC or SMFC becoming difficult to operate effectively. On this point I also think that its important that the elected SMFC board is allowed to run the club in the way they see fit –i.e. the CIC board and indeed members cant expect to be consulted on every decision – if the board aren’t running things to your liking don’t re-elect them sort of idea.

2 – Exec Board – I completely understand the necessity of this board and agree with it in principle, but as its unelected it wouldn’t be answerable to the supporters – what if the exec board make a decision or veto a deal against the wishes of the support at large. I understand the premise is to only get involved in legal dealings etc – but who determines what goes to the exec board and what doesn’t – if they have overall governance then what’s to stop them making decisions on issues that they were not originally supposed to have a say on.

3 - Fan apathy – SMiSA really struggled to make an impact because there were never more that about 120 members and only really 10 who actually were actively doing things – if Saints fans get bored of the CIC or if the team gets relegated I’m concerned the fan involvement might drop off to the point that the model becomes unsustainable.

4 – Division of support – The Saints fans are a great bunch for not getting on with each other – I’m concerned that the CIC members/Non Members will become a big division in our support and may lead to some people feeling isolated – or worse, some fans feeling superior. This is something we all probably have to be careful of and ensure that any new regime is totally inclusive.

5 – Inexperience - I like Richard and I like that he’s come up with a lot of new ideas for the club to make money – I like that he is driven and has belief that St Mirren can grow as a club, but I fear there is an element of naivety. The numbers that were discussed in the presentations seem reasonable enough, but there has also been talk of getting Old Firm fans to get Season tickets at St Mirren instead of with the OF, because we’ll offer them more value, or because we will be their community club. By and large fans don’t change their teams, we can convince a few I’m sure, but we’re talking 10s not 100s. Football fans aren’t consumers – it’s a business yes, but it doesn’t really work the same way other ones do – and I’m not certain Richard appreciates that yet.

6 - Exit strategy – if/when this happens I will sign up so don’t take this point as me willing the thing to fail – if/when it happens I will really be hoping it takes off and is a huge success, because this is my club and I want it to work. That said, I think there has to be a clearly defined exit strategy – At what point is the scheme determined a failure? Would those involved, both Richard and his team, and the fans who have bought in be willing/brave enough to admit if it hadn’t been successful and was time to call it a day? In such a scenario – the club is put up for sale as the only asset of TTH to pay its debts, fair enough, but who decides on the suitability of potential buyers? Also on this – Richard mentioned that he and Chris held the 100 or so shares in TTH is there a potential that the power would be taken out of the fans’ hands in this situation?

[/Quote]

There is a concern that commercial revenue that was previously spent direct with the club may now be spent with the CIC - in some ways this is an inevitability - but SMFC just have to be aware of it and ensure the amount being 'lost' is not too significant. I have been told this has already happened on some level but I don't know any other detail.

I am interested in how profits from events organised by the CIC will be distributed.

Will profits from the bar be fed into the CIC or the club?

will the CIC pay any sort of rent for the bar area?

The CIC will organise events using SMFC's facilities - eg corporate events - will this be done in the same way it is now with the club getting the money direct but the CIC negotiating a discount or will all money from the booking go to the CIC?

These are not leading questions by the way!

Neither of these posts were answered - there were many more like them - from many different people. Just because you were pro-CIC doesn't mean everyone who wasn't convinced was guilty of poor form. The CIC had many questions on here and elsewhere that were never answered and that was a massive flaw IMO - bleating that no-one really put up a reasonable and fair minded anti-CIC post is just untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on...the debate got lost in petty personal attacks on the individuals involved by individuals with grudges against them and general sulks. I have tried to get it back on track a few times, but it always gets hijacked by the usual suspects. Even now we see dafty posts from both extremes slagging off KMG's bid in a bizarre and twisted attempt to defend the CIC and vice versa. That TsuMirren character is opne of the worst culprits. No wonder that Ebbsfleet is in the shitter. bootyshake.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on...the debate got lost in petty personal attacks by me on all individuals (including myself) with or without grudges against them or me and general sulks. I have tried to get it back on track a few times, but I always hijack myself, the usual suspect. Even now we see dafty posts from both extremes of my personality slagging off KMG's bid in a bizarre and twisted attempt to defend the CIC and vice versa. That TsuMirren character is one of my next targets. No wonder that Ebbsfleet is in the shitter, with nutjobs like me lurking round the interweb. bootyshake.gif

Fixed it for you. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I can answer on behalf of the mods but Feegie Saint used homophobic and arguably racist comments on a lot of his previous posts. I think that was why he was banned.

And FWIW, there are those that are wanks on here! Some, and you know who, have (for whatever reason) launched a smear campaign against REA and the CiC generally. Those who tried to stick up for the man or the CiC notion, probably because they had taken the time to meet with him and discuss their concerns, we're accused of wanting a place on some sort of board.

With the exception of Somner9 every counter-CiC arguement has been along the lines of " he doesn't even run a company", "he's a dick", "you are an arselicker" or "there are no scarves".

The case levelled against those who are on the side of the CiC is that we just call those against names... However that is what that anti lot do too! The only difference is, we have bothered to look into it, go to them with our concerns and hear what they have to say.

I can't believe a KTF post has 3 red dots!.......Sorry mate it was because you were defending me ....Your posts are always well constructed and informative, 77 is a total fud but any post I make will carry the red ones........They make no difference to me as I use them for exeptionally good or bad posts but as you can see bland posts are targeted by the children who roam this site with their aliases on here. They should all be in bed now...lol

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...