St. Sid Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 A thought occurred to me.... With SG et al seemingly accusing the KMcG bid of being hostile and effectively forcing him out of the bidding ......Is there perhaps some legal rule that a bid cannot be completed (ie 10k Hours) without first taking due consideration of any other bids ( ie K McG ) ? I think with the resignation by KMG after the revelations and seeming acceptance that he behaved irresponsibly by coniving to let an official from another club see sensitive documents the "due consideration" question will have been answered. What is odd about KMG's statement is his claim that their has been a campaign against his bid - where? No cnut knows the first thing about his bid as he hasn't bothered his arse to tell us about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_the_saint Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 I think with the resignation by KMG after the revelations and seeming acceptance that he behaved irresponsibly by coniving to let an official from another club see sensitive documents the "due consideration" question will have been answered. What is odd about KMG's statement is his claim that their has been a campaign against his bid - where? No cnut knows the first thing about his bid as he hasn't bothered his arse to tell us about it. I may be sounding naive here, but what exactly was so wrong with withey knowing how we paid our players? I understand that under normal circumstances there would be no need to show another club official, but in this case maybe there was a need for him to see this info ( as he was giving legal advice to K McG, maybe he would have to look over certain contracts to check their legality.) I don't have a problem with the consortium preferring the 10k hours bid and forcing K McG out. The same outcome would have happened anyway but it seems like the consortium have grasped an opportunity to remove any rival bids. I just wondered if there was a technical reason for forcing K McG to back off, if this will help speed up the process for 10k hours to take over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civilsaint Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 (edited) ^^^ Potential (or even perceived) confilct of interest relating to Withey. He was r*ngers company secretary at the time. Whether or not this was a "side project" or his day job there should have been full disclosure of any potential confilcts. From the board's statment today, they claim there was no disclosure. Giving confidential, commencially sensitive information to your direct competition is not normally seen as a wise move in business. Edited March 27, 2012 by civilsaint Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted March 27, 2012 Report Share Posted March 27, 2012 I may be sounding naive here, but what exactly was so wrong with withey knowing how we paid our players? I understand that under normal circumstances there would be no need to show another club official, but in this case maybe there was a need for him to see this info ( as he was giving legal advice to K McG, maybe he would have to look over certain contracts to check their legality.) I don't have a problem with the consortium preferring the 10k hours bid and forcing K McG out. The same outcome would have happened anyway but it seems like the consortium have grasped an opportunity to remove any rival bids. I just wondered if there was a technical reason for forcing K McG to back off, if this will help speed up the process for 10k hours to take over? At the kindest level it is a conflict of interests that wasn't disclosed. Even that is enough for KMG to be shown the door. Once you start building the possibilities over and above that it starts to get scary. I did find KMG's parting shot about the consortium / REA buying his shares almost funny....I would have had some sympathy for that position previously. Not to sure now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) Even before he was involved in CW's takeover of r*ngers, Gary Withey, the legal expert of football takeovers, was involved in advising on the takeover at Crystal Palace... here's an excerpt from a blog article from 26th December 2011 which gives the headlines on Withey's involvement in Crystal Palace being taken over and ending in administration (including inventing board minutes for meetings which never took place): http://scotslawthoug...crystal-palace/ (the link won't work due to the mention of r*ngers in the web address) "Gary Withey Has Been Here Before In 1998 Crystal Palace FC was purchased by Allowclear Ltd. This company was a vehicle set up for the purpose by Mark Goldberg to buy Crystal Palace from Ron Noades. The sorry history of the takeover is detailed in the decision of Mr Justice Lewison in the High Court action by the DTI to seek disqualification orders against Mr Goldberg and James McAvoy, a Chartered Accountant who was also a director of Crystal Palace after the deal. The full judgment can be found here. I am sure that the disastrous turn of events at Crystal Palace have taught Mr Withey many lessons which he is using to benefit his new team. He will have seen close at hand a brash young millionaire taking ownership of a club with a long history, and promising the earth in terms of investments and progress. He also saw the very quick demise of the club under the weight of debt brought about by mis-management, and an ethos of having few if any formal board meetings. A lack for proper accounting was also alleged. Board minutes were prepared recording Board meetings which had not taken place. As Company Secretary, Mr Withey would clearly not have been at the heart of the dealings of Messrs Goldberg and McAvoy, as shown below. I am sure that these experiences have helped him attain the present heights in his career and will help him, as far as possible, to avoid the pitfalls which trapped Mr Goldberg!" Edited March 29, 2012 by Dibbles old paperboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 ... so aside from using someone who was club secretary of r*ngers FC when he was putting his bid together, McGeoch was using a 'legal expert' in football takeover whose track record included being involved in Crystal Palace going into administration and inventing minutes for board meetings which never took place. While he was working on McGeoch's takeover bid for St Mirren, Withey was also refusing to co-operate with the SFA inquiry into Craig Whyte's suitability to be a director or owner of r*ngers. Since r*ngers went into administration Withey stopped working at Collyer Bristow and then resigned for "personal reasons" and has gone into hiding claiming that RFC supporters have threatened his safety (threats which the Metropolitan Police don't seem to have been made aware of). All in all a good choice of lawyer to spearhead your takeover bid! All Ken McGeoch has to do to allay some of our fears about his bid is to admit using Withey was a mistake but instead he has been really defensive and claimed Withey and Collyer Bristow have great reputations in football takeover and were the best people to employ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 http://www.10000hours.org/forum/question-and-answers/125-draft-articles-for-10000hours-st-mirren-fans-coop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 http://www.10000hour...irren-fans-coop Cheers for posting the link. Apologies if I'm missing something glaringly obvious here (I've only just opened and glanced at the docs), but why are we still referring to a CIC? Isn't the new initiatve a co-op? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Cheers for posting the link. Apologies if I'm missing something glaringly obvious here (I've only just opened and glanced at the docs), but why are we still referring to a CIC? Isn't the new initiatve a co-op? fuxake. How many times....it's still a Community Interest Company - that's how we can attract social funding for the intial deal and for subsequent initiatives, including subsiduary initiatives. CIC v1.0 was not a co-op - CIC v1.1 is a co-op. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 fuxake. How many times....it's still a Community Interest Company - that's how we can attract social funding for the intial deal and for subsequent initiatives, including subsiduary initiatives. CIC v1.0 was not a co-op - CIC v1.1 is a co-op. Okay, okay.....got it now. Just remember Sid, we're not all as tuned in as you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Okay, okay.....got it now. Just remember Sid, we're not all as tuned in as you Its no wonder folk are confused - the facts have got lost in the haze of months of dafty cowboy / muppet aliases posting a lot of irrelevant shite. Why fans are against fan ownership beggars belief. It we be good if we could start looking at the facts of the proposed system of fan ownership now rather than supposition of what it may or may not be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 http://www.10000hour...irren-fans-coop Damn...homework! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 29, 2012 Report Share Posted March 29, 2012 Damn...homework! I tried to print it off, but my printer got to page 3 and fell asleep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 In short a company (CiC) and not even in name (in the draft) a co-op. Surprised? no not really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) I've been keeping apace with goings-on at 'The Big Blue House' and came across this in a notice to shareholders that was issued when Craig Whyte bought them - can anyone with any know-how in these things tell me if this 'takeover rule' will have any knock on effect on the purchase of the 52% Under Rule 9 of the Takeover Code, if any person acquires an interest in shares which, when taken together with shares in which he and persons acting in concert with him are already interested, carry 30 per cent. or more of the voting rights of a company which is subject to the Code, that person is normally required to make a general offer in cash to all shareholders in the company at the highest price paid by him, or any person acting in concert with him, for an interest in such shares within the preceding 12 months. ETA - Think it may only apply to Listed companies. Edited March 30, 2012 by Eddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 I've been keeping apace with goings-on at 'The Big Blue House' and came across this in a notice to shareholders that was issued when Craig Whyte bought them - can anyone with any know-how in these things tell me if this 'takeover rule' will have any knock on effect on the purchase of the 52% ETA - Think it may only apply to Listed companies. It might be slightly off topic but ask rtc. So many appositely nerdy minds on there could be in love with a question like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 I've been keeping apace with goings-on at 'The Big Blue House' and came across this in a notice to shareholders that was issued when Craig Whyte bought them - can anyone with any know-how in these things tell me if this 'takeover rule' will have any knock on effect on the purchase of the 52% ETA - Think it may only apply to Listed companies. It only applies to PLC's, as Saints are a limited company it doesn't apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reborn saint Posted March 30, 2012 Report Share Posted March 30, 2012 If one thing is true about the sale of our club it is Richard Atkinson is not the right leader to take us forward. He must go as soon as possible once the deal is done. He has no rapport with the fans and his PR (even allowing for SNP intervention) is to be quite honest pathetic. We need SG however as who else do we put into the Lion's den for the rebel 10?. No one on here will fit that bill so shut the fcuk up about control and make sure we keep our greatest chairman at the club! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 If one thing is true about the sale of our club it is Richard Atkinson is not the right leader to take us forward. He must go as soon as possible once the deal is done. He has no rapport with the fans and his PR (even allowing for SNP intervention) is to be quite honest pathetic. We need SG however as who else do we put into the Lion's den for the rebel 10?. No one on here will fit that bill so shut the fcuk up about control and make sure we keep our greatest chairman at the club! Oh FFS - here we go again :rolleyes; The old board of directors have admitted they've ran out of ideas, they are fed up with it all, they are tired etc. But here you are still wanting to cling onto them whilst pushing out the guy who put this whole thing together. Talk about a lack of gratitude. PR at the club always was amateurish at best long before Richard Atkinson came onto the scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reborn saint Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Richard came to the club with a great idea and contacts which could and maybe should have us as a cic right now. He failed due to politicts from the SNP. However he has failed in many more ways with his PR which is really laughable. He is not a leader and never will be, Your nemesis Stuart Gilmour should in my opinion be retained after the sale as no one has his ability or experience to represent our club. So to recap.....St mirren become a coop.....SG stays as chairman (can be voted out anytime).....REA walks away ......St Mirren fans take positions on the board (need direction..i.e from SG) 2 yrs later maybe SG can go but he is needed now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted March 31, 2012 Author Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I think Richard would be the first to admit he has made some mistakes along the way with the CIC bid but he has contributed a lot to the club behind the scenes since he and Chris joined the board. It has taken a massive amount of effort and time to get the CIC bid to the brink of success, I'd reckon once it is all out of the way and 10000Hours does own the club then he will have more time and energy to focus on improving his "PR". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_the_saint Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 TBH I don't see why PR should be up to him? Fair enough, when he first came in and had to sell the idea to the fans, he could have done it a lot better. However when the CIC finally gets up and running, I'd expect the CIC board members to each have a specific role to perform and one of these id imagine would be communications. Richard still has valuable skills and contacts when it comes to the community side of it, and afterall that is the main purpose of the CIC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 A wee bit early to be worrying about who will be avalable for election. There's still work to be done in ensuring this can happen. There are still pestiferous scumbags at work in the background trying to kill off fan ownership. Scandalous that f'k'rk c"ntcil were allowed to plough cash into inbred fc. The SNP were happy to do it there - yet they are actively seeking to scupper fan ownership at St Mirren. With the upcoming local elections we have the opportunity to send them a very clear message. Act against St Mirren and you are not a friend of Renfrewshire.....vote them out of the power they are abusing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reborn saint Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 I think Richard would be the first to admit he has made some mistakes along the way with the CIC bid but he has contributed a lot to the club behind the scenes since he and Chris joined the board. It has taken a massive amount of effort and time to get the CIC bid to the brink of success, I'd reckon once it is all out of the way and 10000Hours does own the club then he will have more time and energy to focus on improving his "PR". I take your points on board but for me there never was a need to go silent once never mind twice and it reflects badly on him. He has the ability to get the the coop sale done but has no leadership qualities to take us forward. My main point is we need to retain SG to argue and bargain for our position. Without him who will do it....REA?...YOU?..St SId?..Poz? Stuart D?.....As far as I can see we have a lack of experience and to get rid of our best ever chairman would be an act of folly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted April 1, 2012 Report Share Posted April 1, 2012 I take your points on board but for me there never was a need to go silent once never mind twice and it reflects badly on him. He has the ability to get the the coop sale done but has no leadership qualities to take us forward. My main point is we need to retain SG to argue and bargain for our position. Without him who will do it....REA?...YOU?..St SId?..Poz? Stuart D?.....As far as I can see we have a lack of experience and to get rid of our best ever chairman would be an act of folly. Gilmour has said he wants out. He mentioned that he'd be happy to help over some transition period but he said he'd done his time, was out of ideas and that he felt it was time for him to go. I can't understand why or how you think you are going to force him to stay on - and I really can't fathom why you think you should retain a man who doesn't want to be there, whilst ousting the man who would have taken the fans buyout from concept to successful conclusion. Oh aye..........I know I have ruled myself out of standing for any election, as has Div, and Poz first ruled himself in, then out declaring he was now only interested in pies. Sid also ruled himself out of an election saying one wasn't necessary as he planned to become a President and to run the club as a dictatorship. I'm not sure why you chose those names, but regardless I'm pretty sure that any St Mirren fan could fight for St Mirren's interests on the SPL board without too much bother at all - the point in question is whether they would become entrenched in that position, or whether they would be able to cede ground and make concessions to negotiate for some sort of solution. 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.