Jump to content

Club Sale. Developments "very Soon"


div

Recommended Posts


No. The story goes that when the team was founded in 1994 it was decided that it would be a good idea to have the initials "www" and some drunk in the pub is credited with coming up with "Wishaw Wycombe Wanderers".

And yet so many possibilities. tongue.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're top class comedy animal. Since you appeared on the forum you have slabbered one insinuation after another about the CIC. Not one of your promised revelations has ever come to fruition.

This latest madness is classic stuff from you. You bang on about the street football initiative and when corrected in your misinformation come back with "evidence" that you have spoken to "the people".....I am guessing that'll be "the people" in your head. 1eye.gif

The people are very real and you are very wrong. I challenge you to provide evidence. I also challenge you (for the third time) to provide evidence that your CIC scheme was somehow stopped by councillors, It is quite clear that you simply made up this claim to shift the blame on to others. The scheme was clearly stopped because the funders see it for what it is - how to get control of a football club without putting your hand in your pocket and getting the taxpayer and supporters to pay off the debt burden created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The people are very real and you are very wrong. I challenge you to provide evidence. I also challenge you (for the third time) to provide evidence that your CIC scheme was somehow stopped by councillors, It is quite clear that you simply made up this claim to shift the blame on to others. The scheme was clearly stopped because the funders see it for what it is - how to get control of a football club without putting your hand in your pocket and getting the taxpayer and supporters to pay off the debt burden created.

And I challenge you to prove "the people" actually exist and are not in your head. 1eye.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're top class comedy animal. Since you appeared on the forum you have slabbered one insinuation after another about the CIC. Not one of your promised revelations has ever come to fruition.

Sounds like animal is part of the group who are 'organising' the CIC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a supporter of 10000hrs cic/coop i have found the first piece of news which is negative in our fan based buy out. Everything I have read on here has not been backed up with mainly minority shareholders looking for money. Now though a man whose opinion I respect has issued a warning to us. "I've undertaken a financial analysis on St Mirren with respect to their potential co op scheme. Fans should realise that this is a high risk investment. SMFC requires substantial restructuring of operations to be viable long term. Clarity is required on where this money will come from if co op bid succeeds". David Hillier is a well respected financial expert and I for one was not aware of any need for major restructuring. This for me is worrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a supporter of 10000hrs cic/coop i have found the first piece of news which is negative in our fan based buy out. Everything I have read on here has not been backed up with mainly minority shareholders looking for money. Now though a man whose opinion I respect has issued a warning to us. "I've undertaken a financial analysis on St Mirren with respect to their potential co op scheme. Fans should realise that this is a high risk investment. SMFC requires substantial restructuring of operations to be viable long term. Clarity is required on where this money will come from if co op bid succeeds". David Hillier is a well respected financial expert and I for one was not aware of any need for major restructuring. This for me is worrying.

High risk investment? It's more than that. For those signed up to 10000hours there is minimal chance of any return at all on your money. If you are looking at it as an investment this is the equivalent of sticking a tenner a month on "0" at the Roulette Wheel, without the odds to back it up.

If the club needs restructuring then it needs it anyway. I've always said things could be done much better than they are now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High risk investment? It's more than that. For those signed up to 10000hours there is minimal chance of any return at all on your money. If you are looking at it as an investment this is the equivalent of sticking a tenner a month on "0" at the Roulette Wheel, without the odds to back it up.

If the club needs restructuring then it needs it anyway. I've always said things could be done much better than they are now.

I don't think he is daft enough to think we are looking for any money back. His point is we need a large sum of money after the takeover goes through which I was not aware of. There is nothing to show how we would raise this money and as such he is raising a concern. I.e. we cannot continue long term under a cic without alot more funds than we are currently struggling to reach for the takeover. The risk he refers to is for the club....not the individual. I am not saying we won't have something in place but it does concern me at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he is daft enough to think we are looking for any money back. His point is we need a large sum of money after the takeover goes through which I was not aware of. There is nothing to show how we would raise this money and as such he is raising a concern. I.e. we cannot continue long term under a cic without alot more funds than we are currently struggling to reach for the takeover. The risk he refers to is for the club....not the individual. I am not saying we won't have something in place but it does concern me at this time.

Why dont you contact Richard and ask him im sure he will tell you if your concerns are valid.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he is daft enough to think we are looking for any money back. His point is we need a large sum of money after the takeover goes through which I was not aware of. There is nothing to show how we would raise this money and as such he is raising a concern. I.e. we cannot continue long term under a cic without alot more funds than we are currently struggling to reach for the takeover. The risk he refers to is for the club....not the individual. I am not saying we won't have something in place but it does concern me at this time.

The only cash outlay I can see would be the money required to refurbish this void that keeps being talked about. That probably is a financial risk and I suppose in the current economic environment you would have to wonder about the sustainability of any business that is planning to go into the licensed trade.

There are plenty of SEN's out there that have got off the ground with little or no cash up front and in this case 10000hours would be using the current facilities at the stadium to generate income without any need for further outlay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only cash outlay I can see would be the money required to refurbish this void that keeps being talked about. That probably is a financial risk and I suppose in the current economic environment you would have to wonder about the sustainability of any business that is planning to go into the licensed trade.

There are plenty of SEN's out there that have got off the ground with little or no cash up front and in this case 10000hours would be using the current facilities at the stadium to generate income without any need for further outlay.

Something closer to the Motherwell model rings some alarm bells for me. They have stated the need for a £750,000 fund to be used in the absence of their sugar daddy and as we also have no banking overdraft facility this might be something we need to introduce. The sum maybe smaller but nevertheless It is a fact that the board have had to use their own personal accounts for the periods all clubs suffer from a lack of cash flow. Richard's famous "charge" on the club was to provide a short term loan when the club had no money. If we are to become a cic then we need to know how this is going to be managed. Maybe Richard will offer Maxi at the start but we need to be able to continue without one person having that amount of control. As I have said before just a concern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reborn, first off - the club should be able to handle it's own finances without the need to assistance to get through cash flows. I appreciate there is often unforeseen circumstances like the situation at Dundee United and at Dunfermline but a well run club should have a bit of cash behind them anyway. Just like a well run household has some money in the bank, a well run football club should have cash reserves rather than managing it's finances like a junkie on benefits.

Secondly, whilst you might be right in that there may be an initial need for some sort of assistance, in the longer term the CIC should be generating it's own profits - just like any other successful business. It's a start up so that money might not be there right from the word go but they should be able to generate profits from their activities beyond the money members pay in

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillier is part of the current issues at scumgers. I would be concerned about his reasons for suddenly turning his attentions to St Mirren shortly after some very odd Boardroom behaviour by scumgers officials was released to the media further damaging the reputation of his "friends". As for him being a respected financial guru - he does articles for the f'k'n Daily Record on how scumgers can't possibly fail and how wonderful the scumgers fans are. 1eye.gif

I think there is a real danger in making comparisons between St Mirren and Motherwell as there are huge differences in the situations at each club. Motherwells infrastructure is in the shitter and needs significant investment just to maintain it never mind refresh it.

The cash for the supporters bar is already in place providing 10,000hrs progresses. If it doesn't then the bar won't happen - the void will remain a void space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a supporter of 10000hrs cic/coop i have found the first piece of news which is negative in our fan based buy out. Everything I have read on here has not been backed up with mainly minority shareholders looking for money. Now though a man whose opinion I respect has issued a warning to us. "I've undertaken a financial analysis on St Mirren with respect to their potential co op scheme. Fans should realise that this is a high risk investment. SMFC requires substantial restructuring of operations to be viable long term. Clarity is required on where this money will come from if co op bid succeeds". David Hillier is a well respected financial expert and I for one was not aware of any need for major restructuring. This for me is worrying.

Are there any links to the article ? I'd like to know what he's talking about, does he mean the club needs to invest money in the team if we want to stay in the SPL long term or win trophies as I can't see why a club that's currently running on a more or less break even basis can't continue to do so under the CiC unless he thinks we're all going to demand more investment in the team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillier is part of the current issues at scumgers. I would be concerned about his reasons for suddenly turning his attentions to St Mirren shortly after some very odd Boardroom behaviour by scumgers officials was released to the media further damaging the reputation of his "friends". As for him being a respected financial guru - he does articles for the f'k'n Daily Record on how scumgers can't possibly fail and how wonderful the scumgers fans are. 1eye.gif

I think there is a real danger in making comparisons between St Mirren and Motherwell as there are huge differences in the situations at each club. Motherwells infrastructure is in the shitter and needs significant investment just to maintain it never mind refresh it.

The cash for the supporters bar is already in place providing 10,000hrs progresses. If it doesn't then the bar won't happen - the void will remain a void space.

Yes you are right Sid ..he is a r*ngers fan and has done articles for many newspapers including the worst. However he has slated the CW connected buy out of our club and has backed the Motherwell model as the way forward. He has been supportive of 10000hrs but after having a closer look at the model has some concerns about the need for more investment after the sale (nothing to do with the bar). I would like to know if more finance is needed and if so how much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if we raise the £2million (or the figure the BOD will accept) we start the cic with nothing. Why does Motherwell need £750,000 and we can get by on nothing?

Motherwell don't need £750,00. What they are actually targeting is having a £1.5m strategic reserve.

There are a huge number of differences between the two clubs proposals though. The Motherwell Society is taking in most of it's money up front. The basic level of membership for example costs £300 up front and then £50 per annum. They also have no proposals to become more heavily involved in community development and there is no intention there of opening the society membership out on an SEN basis to develop any further revenue streams.

The Motherwell Society and 10000hour proposals involve co-operative ownership but beyond that there is very little similarity between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you are right Sid ..he is a r*ngers fan and has done articles for many newspapers including the worst. However he has slated the CW connected buy out of our club and has backed the Motherwell model as the way forward. He has been supportive of 10000hrs but after having a closer look at the model has some concerns about the need for more investment after the sale (nothing to do with the bar). I would like to know if more finance is needed and if so how much.

reborn saint, he is a scumgers fan and then some. His 15 minutes of fame has been talking up everything scumgers have done in the Daily Record. He's the chap that still reckons scumgers £134M debt can still be managed through a CVA with enough left over to pay a hefty sum to Craig Whyte for his shares. 1eye.gif He is also still arguing that the Ticketus deal is good for scumgers and also for us. His theories on St Mirren are based on an assumption that we have made a loss for the last two years. His conclusion following that wrong assumption is that St Mirren should not be financially dependent on cup runs. Neither of which is actually true. Furthermore the CIC actually strengthens our non-match day income. He is working on back of the fag packet theory....hardly the behaviour of a finance guru and more the behaviour of a tweeting fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there any links to the article ?

It is not an article - it is a tweet, but more of a twat:

I've undertaken a financial analysis of St Mirren with respect to their potential co-op scheme. Fans should realise that this is a high risk investment. SMFC requires substantial restructuring of operations to be viable in long term. Also, £2m investment will be to buy shares from owners. The money will not go into club and the club needs more investment. Clarity is required on where this will come from if co-op bid succeeds.

Obviously not a detailed analysis as he has managed to get all his facts wrong. One day someone will actually come up with a half decent revelation. 1eye.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motherwell don't need £750,00. What they are actually targeting is having a £1.5m strategic reserve.

There are a huge number of differences between the two clubs proposals though. The Motherwell Society is taking in most of it's money up front. The basic level of membership for example costs £300 up front and then £50 per annum. They also have no proposals to become more heavily involved in community development and there is no intention there of opening the society membership out on an SEN basis to develop any further revenue streams.

The Motherwell Society and 10000hour proposals involve co-operative ownership but beyond that there is very little similarity between the two.

reborn saint, he is a scumgers fan and then some. His 15 minutes of fame has been talking up everything scumgers have done in the Daily Record. He's the chap that still reckons scumgers £134M debt can still be managed through a CVA with enough left over to pay a hefty sum to Craig Whyte for his shares. 1eye.gif He is also still arguing that the Ticketus deal is good for scumgers and also for us. His theories on St Mirren are based on an assumption that we have made a loss for the last two years. His conclusion following that wrong assumption is that St Mirren should not be financially dependent on cup runs. Neither of which is actually true. Furthermore the CIC actually strengthens our non-match day income. He is working on back of the fag packet theory....hardly the behaviour of a finance guru and more the behaviour of a tweeting fan.

Your post is fairenough Sid and like I said it was only a concern (the first) I have had about a cic. There is still a problem with cash flow at the club and the cup/tv money made life easier for payments to be made (some were late). The BOD have used their own accounts on many occasions to manage cash flow. My question is........When similar problems arise which they will where do we get the money?

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...
×
×
  • Create New...