Jump to content

That's Entertainment......lights Out And A Cic In The...


St. Sid
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought it worth starting a fresh thread spurned on by the fact that a fellow supporter actually managed to ask a civil question in relation to the current concerns we all have about the ownership of the club. A bit hopeful, but mibbae, just mibbae we can avoid all the OFesque nonsense mainly driven by that auld wrinkly bawbag Bluto.

He is my current take on where we are.

The CIC has had a set back. Not a bad thing in my opinion as it was all a little too easy and the fans were a bit of a tick in the box for the funding applications. We can all see the benefits the CIC brings to the club. The asset lock, fan involvement, community involvement, additional funding through the CIC status, development of the club facilities, partnership with community orgs for additional projects to benefit both the club and the community, additional income for the club.....to name but a few.

There are two other interested parties that will be putting foward traditional offers for the club and if the rumours are to be believed neither meet the asking price. For me that is an alarm bell in itself. They simply cannot afford the club - will we see debt against assets, will we see the playing budget raped and pillaged as they can't fund our progress? Perhaps not, but we don't know and the bottom line is that we cannot influence those deals or what happens to the club after that - other than through traditional boycotts, etc...and that will not do our "progress" any good. Again, not an attempt to slate the other potential bidders or scare monger. Just stating concerns that we are all probably considering along with the consortium.

Is there a future for the CIC? We don't know as yet.

For me the meeting next week will be make or break for the CIC. I also believe it will be a more productive meeting as there will be a more focussed audience - other than me as the bar will be open.

So can we have a thread that is about genuine concern without any insults, threats or age-ist jokes - unless they are about bluto. tongue.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Never understood this CIC, specifically the 'asset lock'. If St. Mirren isn't a CIC, how are it's assets locked? Who would all need to agree before it's assets are sold?

I would have answered this for you before; however I suggest that you attend the meeting next week and ask your question there. Answering your question will only attract dafties like those above. Happy to drop you a PM if you cannot wait until then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it won't be long now to we find out why the bid failed....the need for silence and the new bid ...allow me to have a guess. The cic has lost the loan part of the funding but has managed to achieve £1.3million in grants...... This is no mean feat and a tribute to the time spent on the deal. Although it might seem strange it is easier to get grant funding than loans in this way due to the way they are assessed. The cic model will be the same with a reduced bid for the club...(max £1.75 million)...fans/corporate/community will still need to meet the shortfall.(ie £450,000) under a new plan and this bid will bring the cic closer to the other rival bids which means the BOD have every right to go for another option.

Edited by reborn saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it won't be long now to we find out why the bid failed....the need for silence and the new bid ...allow me to have a guess. The cic has lost the loan part of the funding but has managed to achieve £1.3million in grants...... This is no mean feat and a tribute to the time spent on the deal. Although it might seem strange it is easier to get grant funding than loans in this way due to the way they are assessed. The cic model will be the same with a reduced bid for the club...(max £1.75 million)...fans/corporate/community will still need to meet the shortfall.(ie £450,000) under a new plan and this bid will bring us closer to the other rival bids which means the BOD have every right to go for another option.

I thought the 'them' and 'us' stuff was going to come to an end, so much for unity.rolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Sid's introductory ramble, it's 'unity' in the sense of, "If you're not a Sellick man like me, you're not in it."

I guess me mentioning his roots, is why Sid's selected me for the personal mentions. I may be a bawbag but I'm not as wrinkled as he is, not fat like he is and so could easily beat his jogging if he wanted to try it in the Paisley 10k next year? :)

Though I am surprised that, so far, the Mods let him run with his age-ist comments, as since October at least, that's been really dodgy territory.

Much like him calling me a darkie if I was black or a poof if I was not heterosexual.

It's the Sellik way, so I suppose they cut him some slack. That could backfire...

As he predicts in his inimitable cack-handed wordless way, he's starting a thread that will be 'spurned on'. I'll certainly spurn it as it offers as much sense and fresh info as his normal rants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a small thought meantime until it is sorted out who will own or run the club ,there was always the topic of the BAR refit.

So on this subject the 800 who pledged the £120 per year still go ahead and pledge(as a 1 off payment).This will allow SMFC the funds to carry out the refit and the revenue goes direct to the club.

The pay back is that 800 vote on a member from the people who parted with the cash to the board.

This way the money that is generated is ploughed back into the club and the fans get a member on board .

Thoughts please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the 'them' and 'us' stuff was going to come to an end, so much for unity.rolleyes.gif

I've sorted that Scott and thanx for poiting it out. St Mirren will be sold under a cic or the other 2 bids. As long as the straw man (as SG said exists on bbc news) dosn't raise his head then I feel the club will be sold to the best bidder. SG has been great for us and I will respect his choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a small thought meantime until it is sorted out who will own or run the club ,there was always the topic of the BAR refit.

So on this subject the 800 who pledged the £120 per year still go ahead and pledge(as a 1 off payment).This will allow SMFC the funds to carry out the refit and the revenue goes direct to the club.

The pay back is that 800 vote on a member from the people who parted with the cash to the board.

This way the money that is generated is ploughed back into the club and the fans get a member on board .

Thoughts please

The licensed trade is in a downward spiral at the moment, but other than that it seems like a fair enough idea.

I recall reading about an English league 2 side (Torquay ?) whose fans were raising a similar amount, and it was solely used on a new player's salary. £96k pa will get you a more than half-decent experienced player in these economic times. In the case of Torquay, the guy got a squad number after the year of the club's founding. So in our case the supporters could own the "77" Shirt, and the annual fees would go towards his salary. I'm sure Danny Lennon would be chuffed anyway.

It will probably never happen, but it's just an idea if the CIC model of supporter investment is NOT taken up by any other owner.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two other interested parties that will be putting foward traditional offers for the club and if the rumours are to be believed neither meet the asking price. For me that is an alarm bell in itself. They simply cannot afford the club - will we see debt against assets, will we see the playing budget raped and pillaged as they can't fund our progress? Perhaps not, but we don't know and the bottom line is that we cannot influence those deals or what happens to the club after that - other than through traditional boycotts, etc...and that will not do our "progress" any good. Again, not an attempt to slate the other potential bidders or scare monger. Just stating concerns that we are all probably considering along with the consortium.

Is that true ? Or do they think it isn't worth £2m ? There is a big difference between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Sid's introductory ramble, it's 'unity' in the sense of, "If you're not a Sellick man like me, you're not in it."

I guess me mentioning his roots, is why Sid's selected me for the personal mentions. I may be a bawbag but I'm not as wrinkled as he is, not fat like he is and so could easily beat his jogging if he wanted to try it in the Paisley 10k next year? smile.png

Though I am surprised that, so far, the Mods let him run with his age-ist comments, as since October at least, that's been really dodgy territory.

Much like him calling me a darkie if I was black or a poof if I was not heterosexual.

It's the Sellik way, so I suppose they cut him some slack. That could backfire...

As he predicts in his inimitable cack-handed wordless way, he's starting a thread that will be 'spurned on'. I'll certainly spurn it as it offers as much sense and fresh info as his normal rants.

Petty, even by a pedant's standards. tongue.png

I set this thread up as a mini-experiment to demonstrate who the CIC debate has been carried out so far. The sad reality is that the debate is repeatedly hijaked by people applying disruptive tactics. The one or two genuine posts get lost in a lot of nonsense from people wrinkly enough to know better. However, as in other debates they can only see their own way and everything else is treated as being non-St Mirren-mindedness. The tragedy being that fans need to rally at a crucial time for the club.

Genuine fans who actually care about the future of the club and would like a say on whether the CIC is to go ahead or not should attend the meeting. This is in fact make or break time for our chance at genuine involvement in the running of the club. If the plan is not right then we will establish that at the meeting and can kill it off there and then. If the plan is still viable then we could secure a safe and progressive future for the club for generations to come. Next week is the time to ask your questions and be sure about whether the CIC is the direction we want for the club.

From a pure and selfish entertainment perspective I would love to see some of the disruptive posters turn up at the meeting and debate their position openly. Twice as funny if the alternative bidders turned up to put forward th case for their plans being better than the CIC. smile.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that true ? Or do they think it isn't worth £2m ? There is a big difference between the two.

I believe that making the club difficult to buy has been a stroke of genius by the consortium. The £2M asking price is a genuine test of how much someone wants to become the guardian of St Mirren. It is also a stringest test of their financial capacity to progress the club. More importantly is how the £2M asking price is achieved. By forcing the bidders to stretch that bit further it tests how they will fund the running of the club. If their answer to the £2M challenge is debt against the assets of the club or worse repaying the debt from the operating budget then they should be told to get ti.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that making the club difficult to buy has been a stroke of genius by the consortium. The £2M asking price is a genuine test of how much someone wants to become the guardian of St Mirren. It is also a stringest test of their financial capacity to progress the club. More importantly is how the £2M asking price is achieved. By forcing the bidders to stretch that bit further it tests how they will fund the running of the club. If their answer to the £2M challenge is debt against the assets of the club or worse repaying the debt from the operating budget then they should be told to get ti.

I agree 100% with the final sentence. This is the last thing anyone wants, but I would think SG & Co would refuse to sell to anyone with such a f*cked-up busines plan: hardly the sort of people who are "for the good of the club".

I'll agree to differ with you on the "£2m genius" aspect. It could be argued that this is too high a market valuation, although presumably you would argue the opposite. The fact that the CIC could have been in charge now for a lesser (more realistic ?) price is potentially a missed opportunity. Also, the loans that the CIC were having to take did impact negatively on the additional funds for the playing staff budget for the first 2-3 years - Richard's words, not mine.

However, if SG & Co can get £2m for their shares, then hats of to them. I think every other Director of a Football Club in Scotland (bar Mad Vlad) would be thinking "I wish that was me".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree 100% with the final sentence. This is the last thing anyone wants, but I would think SG & Co would refuse to sell to anyone with such a f*cked-up busines plan: hardly the sort of people who are "for the good of the club".

I'll agree to differ with you on the "£2m genius" aspect. It could be argued that this is too high a market valuation, although presumably you would argue the opposite. The fact that the CIC could have been in charge now for a lesser (more realistic ?) price is potentially a missed opportunity. Also, the loans that the CIC were having to take did impact negatively on the additional funds for the playing staff budget for the first 2-3 years - Richard's words, not mine.

However, if SG & Co can get £2m for their shares, then hats of to them. I think every other Director of a Football Club in Scotland (bar Mad Vlad) would be thinking "I wish that was me".

In your own words above...."additional funds" - is very different to having an impact on the operational budget as is. Like I say the £2M price tag will keep the tyrekickers and pound shop bargain hunters out of the club......they tend to to look for token £5 deals were clubs are a baw hair away from administration and generally desparate. That isn't us - we have come a long way since Reg tried to knock our assets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don't agree with the £2 million being genius either. Let's say a bidder has 1.6 million and a price of 1.3 million, that then gives the 300K carrot and no the possibility of being able to fund more through league positions and slightly raised crowds whilst also still retaining the possibility of not having any clue how to push things on. Someone could have the 2 million, but no real knowledge of how they'd raise any more money as they're coming in themselves. There's many variables for a price, none of them would be genius really. I think we can forget about people with the money just lying around coming in, not like anyone has sold a club recently for example, and the SPL just doesn't seem like a play ground for oil barons, American groups or Sheikhs (would we want to pay £40 a ticket to watch the product anyway).

It's good that we aren't a target for the buy low then find you're out your depth types, but then in so many cases the "buy for £1 tag" is just a post-it on top a dung heap and our club certainly isn't that anyway. The price tag makes it look like we're out of the price band for traditional takeovers and the community option, without any stupid gimmicks, does look like the preferred/most sensible option.

I hope Richard gets a bit of time to explain what the new model will look like before he's pecked at, simple things like is the 1.3 million still there, was the 700K loan money, will the consortium accept staggered payment of the remaining 700K, is it still a CIC, what's the board structure, how does it protect the minority...etc, etc... maybe not so simple. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don't agree with the £2 million being genius either. Let's say a bidder has 1.6 million and a price of 1.3 million, that then gives the 300K carrot and no the possibility of being able to fund more through league positions and slightly raised crowds whilst also still retaining the possibility of not having any clue how to push things on. Someone could have the 2 million, but no real knowledge of how they'd raise any more money as they're coming in themselves. There's many variables for a price, none of them would be genius really. I think we can forget about people with the money just lying around coming in, not like anyone has sold a club recently for example, and the SPL just doesn't seem like a play ground for oil barons, American groups or Sheikhs (would we want to pay £40 a ticket to watch the product anyway).

It's good that we aren't a target for the buy low then find you're out your depth types, but then in so many cases the "buy for £1 tag" is just a post-it on top a dung heap and our club certainly isn't that anyway. The price tag makes it look like we're out of the price band for traditional takeovers and the community option, without any stupid gimmicks, does look like the preferred/most sensible option.

I hope Richard gets a bit of time to explain what the new model will look like before he's pecked at, simple things like is the 1.3 million still there, was the 700K loan money, will the consortium accept staggered payment of the remaining 700K, is it still a CIC, what's the board structure, how does it protect the minority...etc, etc... maybe not so simple. smile.png

I think it is simple, in regard to Wednesday's discussion.

1. Why did the original plan fail.

2. Exactly what is your new plan.

3. What do you know about other bids.

4. The shop is still kinda' rubbish.

That won't take long to discuss. thumbup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerns I had were, the 3 tier board set up would take too long to get anything done while the unelected exec board would still have final say.

Another was, with the cic engaging the community and various projects, what's to stop the cic becoming diluted with the majority no longer being St Mirren fans and therefore not having the same objectives as the original membership.

Who knows if these are still valid. Find out on next week I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a small thought meantime until it is sorted out who will own or run the club ,there was always the topic of the BAR refit.

So on this subject the 800 who pledged the £120 per year still go ahead and pledge(as a 1 off payment).This will allow SMFC the funds to carry out the refit and the revenue goes direct to the club.

The pay back is that 800 vote on a member from the people who parted with the cash to the board.

This way the money that is generated is ploughed back into the club and the fans get a member on board .

Thoughts please

I'll take my pledge back now then, I didn't sign up because of a bar I might use for an hour so once every 2 weeks for 9 months of the year, I signed up because over the last few years we have watched David Murray, Miles Brookson, Vladimir Romanov, Stewart Milne, Rod Petrie and others run up massive, unsustainable, debts for their respective clubs. We have watched Dundee, with fan ownership and a fan representative on the board, go into administration for a second time. The same Dundee who are now voting on allowing outside investors to obtain over 50% shares in the club that the fans recently saved. I signed up because the CiC would allow us, the fans, to have a say in the running of the SPL and put our point across regarding football. I signed up because I think genuine fan ownership is the best thing for the long term future of St Mirren football Club - not 5 or 10 years time but in 20, 50 or 135 years time. I signed up because we are the people who care most about St Mirren and the CiC was the best option to protect that future. I hope their is an alternative available that will allow us to determine the long term future of St Mirren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take my pledge back now then, I didn't sign up because of a bar I might use for an hour so once every 2 weeks for 9 months of the year, I signed up because over the last few years we have watched David Murray, Miles Brookson, Vladimir Romanov, Stewart Milne, Rod Petrie and others run up massive, unsustainable, debts for their respective clubs. We have watched Dundee, with fan ownership and a fan representative on the board, go into administration for a second time. The same Dundee who are now voting on allowing outside investors to obtain over 50% shares in the club that the fans recently saved. I signed up because the CiC would allow us, the fans, to have a say in the running of the SPL and put our point across regarding football. I signed up because I think genuine fan ownership is the best thing for the long term future of St Mirren football Club - not 5 or 10 years time but in 20, 50 or 135 years time. I signed up because we are the people who care most about St Mirren and the CiC was the best option to protect that future. I hope their is an alternative available that will allow us to determine the long term future of St Mirren.

I agree with this post. Think all previous financial pledges should be null and void and securely destroyed.

Too easy for any new bidders or consortium to think 'aye well, we have 800 buddies already in our pocket giving us a £100K a year head start'

Not true.

Start again and convince both those same people and some new ones that you have the best ideas for the future of SMFC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...