Club Statement

[Murray7]

"It should be highlighted that the statement by 10,000Hours on their website regarding writing to seek support from local MP’s, MSP’s and Councillors is strictly the view of 10,000Hours and is not a reflection of the Board of Directors of St Mirren Football Club collectively.

Stewart Gilmour

Chairman

St Mirren Football Club" - Official Site

Atkinson just looks desperate now.

Edited for link to 10000 hours 'request'; http://www.10000hours.org/mp

Edited December 8, 2011 by Murray7

[billyg]

Yes , SG beginning to distance himself and the BOD from 10,000 hrs by the looks of it !

[civilsaint]

Strange.

It is a pretty amateurish statment for the chairman of the club to be making. Such a statement raises more questions than it answers. I find it absurd that any clarification was needed, so what is the reasoning behind the statement? At no time has there ever been the suggestion that writing to elected members was being done on behalf of the board, there has been no communication linking the board to such a tactic.

It looks like the games have started between the different parties.

[billyg]

Strange.

It is a pretty amateurish statment for the chairman of the club to be making. Such a statement raises more questions than it answers. I find it absurd that any clarification was needed, so what is the reasoning behind the statement? At no time has there ever been the suggestion that writing to elected members was being done on behalf of the board, there has been no communication linking the board to such a tactic.

It looks like the games have started between the different parties.

That's what I was thinking , unless someone else has shown a real interest and SG is making it clear to them in public that the current BOD are not in bed with 10,000 hrs !

[civilsaint]

That's what I was thinking , unless someone else has shown a real interest and SG is making it clear to them in public that the current BOD are not in bed with 10,000 hrs !

Yes, or maybe some MP's/councillor's have been giving the club stick for having full inboxes. Such a short, abrput statement just leaves everyone guessing, and opens the door for wild speculation.

Like I said, strange.

[Guest somner9]

It really just says that they are impartial and it's 10000 hours courting the c*ntcillors. Maybe they've had a call or two from the media and they just want it all to go to the people responsible..............................OR? MwuaaaHaaaHaaa (just messing around couldn't resist)

FULL inboxes might be stretching it a bit

Edited December 8, 2011 by somner9

[Vambo57]

Yes, or maybe some MP's/councillor's have been giving the club stick for having full inboxes. Such a short, abrput statement just leaves everyone guessing, and opens the door for wild speculation.

Like I said, strange.

I think you may well be right. They are just covering their arses IMO.

Why does any CIC related statement have to be grasped at by the anti-CIC that something is going/went wrong?

ETA typos

Edited December 8, 2011 by Vambo57

[Griff]

Up until this statement there seems to have been support for 100000 hours from within the BofD , probably because they were the preferred bidders and that their proposed bid was the highest on the table , this statement would suggest that the BofD want to distance themselves from 100000 hours bid and encourage other groups to express an interest in taking over control of the club.

[Wilbur]

There may be a simpler reason for the statement.

10,000 Hours are pleading for backing from MPs, MSP's, Councillors, etc, in their efforts to raise more funding to reach the £2m figure. If successful, all of that £2m will go to some members of the current SMFC board. Therefore those members of the Board (SG etc) would not wish to associate themselves with RA's efforts on behalf of 10,000 Hours as this would smell of Conflict of Interest.

[billyg]

There may be a simpler reason for the statement.

10,000 Hours are pleading for backing from MPs, MSP's, Councillors, etc, in their efforts to raise more funding to reach the £2m figure. If successful, all of that £2m will go to some members of the current SMFC board. Therefore those members of the Board (SG etc) would not wish to associate themselves with RA's efforts on behalf of 10,000 Hours as this would smell of Conflict of Interest.

Yes , but in that case it would surely be the selling consortium only that were distancing themselves , not the Club itself on it's official website?

[pozbaird]

There may be a simpler reason for the statement.

10,000 Hours are pleading for backing from MPs, MSP's, Councillors, etc, in their efforts to raise more funding to reach the £2m figure. If successful, all of that £2m will go to some members of the current SMFC board. Therefore those members of the Board (SG etc) would not wish to associate themselves with RA's efforts on behalf of 10,000 Hours as this would smell of Conflict of Interest.

Correct. SG and the entire BOD have done exactly the right thing. They simply must distance themselves from the 10000hours bid (publicly anyway). It's why we weren't actually allowed into the stadium to tape leaflets to seats. The 10000hours bid remains the only credible bid on the table (as things stand anyway), but with rumours of at least one more bid coming - SG and Co are simply drawing clear lines between the club and ANY bid.

[div]

If anything the board have succeeding in highlighting the fact that 10000Hours ARE engaging with local politicians.

No such thing as bad publicity !

[scottd]

I think you may well be right. They are just covering their arses IMO.

Why does any CIC related statement have to be grasped at by the anti-CIC that something is going/went wrong?

ETA typos

Que sera sera.

[Vambo57]

Que sera sera.

Indeed Scott, Que Sera Sera

[reborn saint]

The BOD are in a difficult position just now and it is not their fault. If like me you are in the majority and recognise the great work SG has put in then you will understand his predicament. 10000hrs made a bid that makes sense to safeguard St Mirren and was offering the £2million price. SG let them run with it and if the funders had come through then we would be a cic under 10000hrs. Now we have a fire fighting plan that might or might not succeed , none of the actions taken should be directed at SG or the board as the selling consortium. They have every right to distance themselves from actions they are not involved in such as 10000hrs looking for support from mp's. To sum up ...SG and the board will continue to run St Mirren in the way they have until they accept a bid. The czech bid was more than the price........wonder why Stewart knocked it back

[St. Sid]

An odd one for the tyre CIC-kickers to chose to try and build yet more spurious rumour upon. Surely the PDE article about how REA has left the door open to KMG would have been an easier target with KMG refusing to give a response to the PDE - although I can't say I blame him - shitehawk of a paper.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

http://www.paisleydailyexpress.co.uk/renfrewshire-sport/renfrewshire-football/renfrewshire-football-st-mirren/2011/12/07/atkinson-i-m-happy-to-do-deal-with-mcgeoch-87085-29906773/

[Drew]

"It should be highlighted that the statement by 10,000Hours on their website regarding writing to seek support from local MP’s, MSP’s and Councillors is strictly the view of 10,000Hours and is not a reflection of the Board of Directors of St Mirren Football Club collectively.

Stewart Gilmour

Chairman

St Mirren Football Club" - Official Site

Atkinson just looks desperate now.

Edited for link to 10000 hours 'request'; http://www.10000hours.org/mp

I'm not sure that this could be described as the actions of a desperate man, TBH.

Why would he be desperate? I daresay he would like the project to succeed as it wouldn't do his personal reputation any harm, but it seems to me that he won't be destitute if this doesn't come to fruition. Maybe he has a passion for this, and is looking to exhaust every option in terms of pushing it through.

Perhaps Mr Atkinson is close to making a final throw of the dice (the timescales mentioned in terms of the current plan might suggest this), and seeking support of elected representatives might be an element of this, but, again, I'm unclear as to why this would be considered desperate.

FWIW, I won't be contacting my elected representatives seeking support until it is a bit clearer as to what the purpose of this exercise would be.

[div]

There is definitely part of me that wishes some sort of joined up team could be created between 10000Hours, Gordon Scott and Ken McGeoch.

I still cannot understand why more fans aren't right behind the concept of the supporters owning the club and the major assets being locked, but I think having a couple of current and ex-directors on the team would give it that extra weight of confidence that it needs to win over the doubters.

Still would love to know more about the McGeoch bid and who is involved and what it entails. It's remarkable that there has been zero leakage on that.

[Drew]

Still would love to know more about the McGeoch bid and who is involved and what it entails. It's remarkable that there has been zero leakage on that.

In some respects, I find it more remarkable that the man himself hasn't been a bit more open about his bid without the need for any leakage.

Stewart Gilmour has made explicit and public reference to a KMcG bid, so we know this isn't mere speculation. When the CIC initiative hit the buffers, it might have been assumed that the time was right for McGeoch to step in and make his intentions known.

It seems to me that the situation is pretty straightforward. The consortium still intend to hold out for £2M. 10000Hours couldn't secure that. Ken McGeoch is apparently in the wings. He either has access to the required funds, or he doesn't. Unless, of course, he is holding out in the hope that the consortium wobble in their conviction and accept less, but that would open the door further for Mr Atkinson and Co., so might be a dangerous game to play if he genuinely wants to buy the controlling shares.

Perhaps he doesn't have access to the full £2M after all, or is still working on this, in which case, why should anyone assume that his bid has any more credibility than that of 10000Hours. FFS, I could weigh in and state an interest if this is level things are operating at.

I agree that an attractive scenario would be a co-op/monied Saints fan combination, with, for me, GLS fitting the bill in terms of the latter figure (I don't know enough about KMcG and have never met him so can't really judge either way, nor would it be right for me to do so). This begs one question....would any co-op ownership model require the co-op element to own the majority share-holding? By that, I mean, could the co-op own, say, 30% of the 52%, with the likes of GLS or McGeoch holding the rest (in addition to their current quota)?

Edited December 8, 2011 by Drew

[glen]

The truth of the matter is that Stuart Gilmour and other members of the Board are very embarrassed by the latest amateur antics of Mr. Atkinson.

You have ask yourself what is the point of Atkinson asking politicians to support this latest scheme.

If the scheme is so good thousands of us will sign up without advice from politicians.

Might I suggest that they are being lined up to take the blame when the scheme collapses, as no doubt are we, the ordinary supporters of the Club. I can see the headline – Atkinson says “I did my best but it all failed because the fans and the politicians did not care enough about their Club”.

I hear the politicians are less than happy with the threatening tone of the e-mail sent to them by Mr. Atkinson. Which basically said support 10,000 hours or else. One told me today he could not honestly ask fellow supporters to put their hard earned cash in to this scheme no matter how much Mr. Atkinson threatened him.

St. Mirren have received a lot of backing from the Council over the years – from planning permissions to the really good street football scheme, and the Board are very concerned that a whole lot of goodwill built up over the years has gone down the toilet pan today.

In addition, several of the club’s sponsors are now looking at this shambles and wondering if they want anything more to do with it.

Edited December 8, 2011 by glen

[civilsaint]

^^ Exactly the kind of wild speculation (dressed up as fact) that I was talking about earlier.

[shull]

Just heard Richard was interviewed on Sportsound earlier by Jim Spence.

Any buddie hear it or got a link for it ?

[Stuart Dickson]

I've said this before but surely as a former director Ken McGeoch must hold a number of shares in the club already. I've absolutely no idea how many, but I presume that he wouldn't need to purchase 52% of the shares to gain an overall majority and therefore he wouldn't need to find £2m. Again without knowing the size of his shareholding, or understanding the rules but could a purchase of 52% of shares, when added to his own share holding, force a "Squeeze Out" or a "Sell Out" - both of which would cost him considerably more than £2m? Could he be waiting for a dissolution of the consortium?

[St. Sid]

I still cannot understand why more fans aren't right behind the concept of the supporters owning the club and the major assets being locked.

That wasn't the impression I got last Saturday. The sidlettes made sure every fan coming through M3 turnstyles got a flyer and every one of them bar one looked delighted to see the document and that the bid was still on. That was before they had even read it and saw the new co-op blah, blah.