The 10000Hours Numbers Explained

[bud77]

sounds good, but as there will be two boards, with the club board made up mainly of 10000 hours peeps! If they don't like it then the cic board cant make them do it!

By 10000 hours peeps, I take it you mean the 1000 or so fans who have already signed up who would be voted on or off the board by the remainder of the 1000 or so fans who didn't stand for election.

Once it's up and running 10000 hours will be driven by it's members, and St Mirren will be one of only a very few clubs who's fans have a proper say on Scottish football. Even an extreme right winger like Stuart Dickson has bought into these socialist policies.

[Stuart Dickson]

Even an extreme right winger like Stuart Dickson has bought into these socialist policies.

Hoi! The Big Society was David Camerons idea

[Guest somner9]

How about no more windbagging until 10000 hours conclude their deal,... or not?

[ktf]

How about no more windbagging until 10000 hours conclude their deal,... or not?

Is that an offer? I think I would please pretty much everyone.

[Stuart Dickson]

How about no more windbagging until 10000 hours conclude their deal,... or not?

I don't want you to stop posting your thoughts on it Somner9 but I'd love to see you change your style. I'd love to see you show some backbone and to see some courage. If you've got something that buries Community Ownership I'd love to see - not least because its a route Id love to take the boys club down too

[Guest somner9]

I don't want you to stop posting your thoughts on it Somner9 but I'd love to see you change your style. I'd love to see you show some backbone and to see some courage. If you've got something that buries Community Ownership I'd love to see - not least because its a route Id love to take the boys club down too

Would never dream of instigating or advocating anything that buries community ownership. The objective of the fans taking a controling interest in SMFC is something that makes my heart sing! And why wouldn't it? the chance to guide our club's destiny.

The head however reads through a sorry tale of mis-information, missed deadlines, missing communication, missed funding and reported Missing In Action! If you cast your eye back over this past year how many MONTHS have 10000 hours just simply dissapeared off the face of this earth we walk upon?

Now the cornerstone of this community ownership seems to pivot on Kibble being given a section of the stadium (our stadium, the one we pay to upkeep) gratis, free, no charge! Allowing them to fit it out and make money from it, with absolutely no commitment to return any meaningful revenue to SMFC.

The cry of indignation I hear is "Well the club could have done that!", and yes they surely could, we surely could if we wanted. the difference being we would be looking at the outset how this would benefit our club? Not how this benefits the kibble. Indeed the Rep from the Kibble at a 10000 hours meeting even had the breathtaking audacity to slate the club for "not doing it themselves!" Even though he wants to do it and keep the revenue to himself.

The biggest fear I have at this version whatever it is? in a line of failures over a year is this... And one shared by SMisa! There is not one piece of information, plan, projection etc, etc that actually shows how this cic will benefit SMFC!

Theres a few "Could's" as in "It could allow an increase to the playing budget in ??? years" and there is no end of "The opportunities for the club from the potential benefits from this event are limitless"

But the detail, hard fast numbers identifying what these "Could's" and "Potential Benefits" would mean don't appear to exist? Surely if you are going to take on a debt of circa £1.75million to secure control of the club, you'd want to know "exactly" what the benefits will be, up front, before it's signed away??? No? isn't that whats happening at ibrox with the call for quote: "Unconditional Bids"?

Then there is the great unspoken issues surrounding "Community Partners". Now since the re-launch of this takeover version of a Co-op thats not really a co-op because it's a CiC, you'd be forgiven for assuming that since it hasn't been mentioned! then the whole "Community Partner" thing, with their opportunity to exert significant influence over the club, had gone!

Wrong! It is, is it not "Community Partners" that are taking control of the void area in the stadium to install their business. And what other areas of the stadium, training complex are earmarked to be given to the "Community Partners"? They are very much still there but now seemingly not even weighing in with their £500 membership.

Funding! here's where I'm sure amongst many other areas SMisa where rightly sceptical to commit there carefully managed funds in the absence of any detail.

We know a major source of public funds was never made available! But who and what exactly is putting up this circa £1million that funds the majority of this takeover? What bodies are putting up the money? who are they? Other than it's a selection of bodies that quote: "fund this sort of thing" is anyone in possesion of detail explaining exactly WHO is funding this?

Could it be a Company or perhaps a group of companies that "Do this sort of thing"?

Could it be a "Community Partner" or group of "Partners" that "Do this sort of thing"?

Doesn't anyone want to know before the direct debits start coming out, who there getting into bed with?

There's a club down the road that had all the assurances under the sun that the "Funding" that underwrote the debt their club had amassed came from a perfectly legitimate and reliable individual.

If you as an individual along with other individuals are about to take control of SMFC and underwrite £1.75million pounds worth of debt, don't you want to know who you're in hock too?

Despite what you may be led to believe, That aren't too many "Bodies", "Groups", "Partners" that do "This kind of thing" without getting a significant return. And we already know before a vote has been cast, or a constitution agreed that part of the stadium has been promised to a "Community Partner or Partners" to enable them to further their objectives, that don't involve a commitment to benefit the club!

I wonder if these "Partners" would mind terribly if we set up shop in their organisations for our own commercial gain?

The fact that it's still not been concluded, that directors are being removed from our board, and normally level headed individuals are issuing stupid threats shows to me a level of desperation.

Can ayone explain why 10000 hours would IGNORE SMisa who if they were assured it was in the club's intrests, were willing to commit £50,000 to this CiC? why are they holding SMisa at arms length? why do they dissapear for months on end, then re-appear saying nothing to explain why they dissapeared?

I really can't for the life of me see that with all the money that is being raised with what 1000? individuals pledging between them £150-£175k a year, and eighty seven or more people/companies etc putting in £3000 each, why the very entity that they are going into £1.75million worth of debt for, hasn't got a set of pre-defined benefits ahead of this large financial undertaking.

So in the words of Norwich City's saviour "Let's be Aving you" don't you want to know who exactly is funding this?

[Stuart Dickson]

Somner, I appreciate your post. Look, I'm not going to defend the indefensible - and I want to stress again that I am not involved with 10000hours or with Richard Atkinson in any other way than as a person who has completed a direct debit form and who wants to see Community Ownership of football clubs become the norm. I won't be seeking election and I don't have any hidden agenda.

From what you are saying you and I are not that far apart, yet again. We both agree community ownership is a good thing. We both agree that Richard Atkinson has mishandled the communication to membership. We both agree the PR hasn't been managed well at all. And we both appear to agree that we could do with a lot more certainty around what is on the table - it certainly frustrated me no end when I found it impossible to get any tangible benefit that I could take back to the Wishaw Wycombe committee when I was looking at the possibility of the club being community members.

Where you and I appear to differ is that I know that in a one member one vote scenario that if the membership feel Richard Atkinson is doing a poor job we'll be able to vote him off the CIC board, and I don't see the bar as being a cornerstone of 10000hours business model at all and I really don't see it as much of an issue.

I've always said that the potential of 10000hours is limited only by the vision and ambition of the membership and I've also questioned the ability of the St Mirren support to realise the full potential of the project. The fact that we keep going back over and over again to the workings of the bar and how the profits will be split surely shows I had a point.

Very early in all this Somner, I gave an example of what I would like to see happening. It was very much in a football context. What I wanted was to see 10000hours seek to recruit community members from grass roots football. The idea would be to look for clubs similar to Wishaw Wycombe in terms of size and in terms of qualification. I suggested a minimum of 10 clubs, spread all across the central belt that 10000hours could then take an active role on the committee at.

The figures using Wishaw Wycombe as the standard, would mean you would suddenly have accessed more than 650 SFA Qualified coaches who attend juvenile football matches every week across all age groups, and if the spread was right, across 10 leagues in 10 regions. Using them as scouts would mean that every single week St Mirren representatives would be watching over 250,000 kids looking for the best of the best young talents which St Mirren could have first pick of. Then there is the possibility of using them to run partnership academy programmes and all manner of community based activities all of which would grow membership and interest in both 10000hours and in St Mirren FC.

On top of that you'd suddenly have a target market of 2500 football mad kids each of whom would be exposed to the benefits of working with St Mirren FC. Regular visits from players and free tickets to matches would boost the clubs PR reputation beyond Paisley, and boost the clubs average attendance. And if the experience is kept positive those kids are going to develop at least a soft spot for the club, if not complete support.

Now I know I'm struggling to put my vision into words but consider those benefits being replicated over and over and over again by 10000hours - not just in football - as they assist those clubs and community members gain new facilities in their local area and as they help them develop their own SEN running their own community based programmes and accessing the resources.

Pie in the sky? Maybe. It depends on the ambition of those who get elected I guess but it's certainly possible and it's that which makes it easy for me to overlook Richard Atkinson's poor communications.

As for knowing who is funding it? Yeah I'd love to know cause then I could put the committee at Wishaw Wycombe onto them and see if we can get some money too. I do know that what Richard Atkinson has said publicly on this does stack up. There is funding available both in grants and loans for Social Enterprise Networks, some of which will accept an SROI as part payment. A wee glance over to Spartans website will show you the names of some of those organisations and funding bodies.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Stuart Dickson

[Guest somner9]

You can have whatever vision you wish. I know my vision and it's shared by MANY that if the fans of SMFC take majority ownership then that should be for the benefit of SMFC!

Noy every other bugger who sees it as a sure fire thing where they can inject some funds and cream off the "Community" profit. Who is funding this?

[Stuart Dickson]

You can have whatever vision you wish. I know my vision and it's shared by MANY that if the fans of SMFC take majority ownership then that should be for the benefit of SMFC!

Noy every other bugger who sees it as a sure fire thing where they can inject some funds and cream off the "Community" profit. Who is funding this?

I would envisage it being revenue neutral - and it would certainly be the cheapest way a football club could massively improve their scouting network. However you are expressing an opinion that I agree is likely to be shared by many 10000hours members, and it's an opinion that would hold back the potential of the whole project and - as a direct result - the development of St Mirren FC.

[St. Sid]

Would never dream of instigating or advocating anything that buries community ownership. The objective of the fans taking a controling interest in SMFC is something that makes my heart sing! And why wouldn't it? the chance to guide our club's destiny.

The head however reads through a sorry tale of mis-information, missed deadlines, missing communication, missed funding and reported Missing In Action! If you cast your eye back over this past year how many MONTHS have 10000 hours just simply dissapeared off the face of this earth we walk upon?

Now the cornerstone of this community ownership seems to pivot on Kibble being given a section of the stadium (our stadium, the one we pay to upkeep) gratis, free, no charge! Allowing them to fit it out and make money from it, with absolutely no commitment to return any meaningful revenue to SMFC.

The cry of indignation I hear is "Well the club could have done that!", and yes they surely could, we surely could if we wanted. the difference being we would be looking at the outset how this would benefit our club? Not how this benefits the kibble. Indeed the Rep from the Kibble at a 10000 hours meeting even had the breathtaking audacity to slate the club for "not doing it themselves!" Even though he wants to do it and keep the revenue to himself.

The biggest fear I have at this version whatever it is? in a line of failures over a year is this... And one shared by SMisa! There is not one piece of information, plan, projection etc, etc that actually shows how this cic will benefit SMFC!

Theres a few "Could's" as in "It could allow an increase to the playing budget in ??? years" and there is no end of "The opportunities for the club from the potential benefits from this event are limitless"

But the detail, hard fast numbers identifying what these "Could's" and "Potential Benefits" would mean don't appear to exist? Surely if you are going to take on a debt of circa £1.75million to secure control of the club, you'd want to know "exactly" what the benefits will be, up front, before it's signed away??? No? isn't that whats happening at ibrox with the call for quote: "Unconditional Bids"?

Then there is the great unspoken issues surrounding "Community Partners". Now since the re-launch of this takeover version of a Co-op thats not really a co-op because it's a CiC, you'd be forgiven for assuming that since it hasn't been mentioned! then the whole "Community Partner" thing, with their opportunity to exert significant influence over the club, had gone!

Wrong! It is, is it not "Community Partners" that are taking control of the void area in the stadium to install their business. And what other areas of the stadium, training complex are earmarked to be given to the "Community Partners"? They are very much still there but now seemingly not even weighing in with their £500 membership.

Funding! here's where I'm sure amongst many other areas SMisa where rightly sceptical to commit there carefully managed funds in the absence of any detail.

We know a major source of public funds was never made available! But who and what exactly is putting up this circa £1million that funds the majority of this takeover? What bodies are putting up the money? who are they? Other than it's a selection of bodies that quote: "fund this sort of thing" is anyone in possesion of detail explaining exactly WHO is funding this?

Could it be a Company or perhaps a group of companies that "Do this sort of thing"?

Could it be a "Community Partner" or group of "Partners" that "Do this sort of thing"?

Doesn't anyone want to know before the direct debits start coming out, who there getting into bed with?

There's a club down the road that had all the assurances under the sun that the "Funding" that underwrote the debt their club had amassed came from a perfectly legitimate and reliable individual.

If you as an individual along with other individuals are about to take control of SMFC and underwrite £1.75million pounds worth of debt, don't you want to know who you're in hock too?

Despite what you may be led to believe, That aren't too many "Bodies", "Groups", "Partners" that do "This kind of thing" without getting a significant return. And we already know before a vote has been cast, or a constitution agreed that part of the stadium has been promised to a "Community Partner or Partners" to enable them to further their objectives, that don't involve a commitment to benefit the club!

I wonder if these "Partners" would mind terribly if we set up shop in their organisations for our own commercial gain?

The fact that it's still not been concluded, that directors are being removed from our board, and normally level headed individuals are issuing stupid threats shows to me a level of desperation.

Can ayone explain why 10000 hours would IGNORE SMisa who if they were assured it was in the club's intrests, were willing to commit £50,000 to this CiC? why are they holding SMisa at arms length? why do they dissapear for months on end, then re-appear saying nothing to explain why they dissapeared?

I really can't for the life of me see that with all the money that is being raised with what 1000? individuals pledging between them £150-£175k a year, and eighty seven or more people/companies etc putting in £3000 each, why the very entity that they are going into £1.75million worth of debt for, hasn't got a set of pre-defined benefits ahead of this large financial undertaking.

So in the words of Norwich City's saviour "Let's be Aving you" don't you want to know who exactly is funding this?

Shameless windbagging....

[buddiecat]

It does beg the question - if Saints were to finish strongly over the next 4 matches - and lets say we finish in 7th place on the final day. Surely some of the prize money won by that placing could be put towards fitting out the void for the supporters to benefit from and the club to make additional revenue from by renting back to the community partners like the Church and the Kibble?

The club budget on finishing the season in 11th place - by reaching the heady heights of 7th that would generate by my rough calculations an additional £320K.

The fit out of the void is rumoured to cost just under £100K - so there would still be an additional £200K available for going into the playing budget.

That to me would be the ideal scenario for all parties - and what a pleasant way to end the season and allow the CiC and the club to be generating revenue from day 1 for both parties rather than being in "debt" to these community partners.

i agree in principal with your idea, but would rather see the league money being invested in the team, the community partners would not invest if they can't get the use of facilities without paying rent,that's one way it works for them as they would pay through the nose for hiring other function suites,the cic is the preferred bid and i'd rather see fan ownership takeover than one individual or one group who want to prey on the entire club and not just simply use facilities, just as long as it's not a lap dancing club that want to use the bar

[scottd]

i agree in principal with your idea, but would rather see the league money being invested in the team, the community partners would not invest if they can't get the use of facilities without paying rent,that's one way it works for them as they would pay through the nose for hiring other function suites,the cic is the preferred bid and i'd rather see fan ownership takeover than one individual or one group who want to prey on the entire club and not just simply use facilities, just as long as it's not a lap dancing club that want to use the bar

Aye because you'd never be out of it.

[Guest somner9]

Does anyone want to know who is putting up this £1million pound loan? Shouldn't the detail of that be available to pledgers and potential pledgers alike? Why the secrecy?

[Stuart Dickson]

Does anyone want to know who is putting up this £1million pound loan? Shouldn't the detail of that be available to pledgers and potential pledgers alike? Why the secrecy?

It's been made available. It's Social Enterprise Funding. I'm sure if you enroll on this conference you'll get more than enough detail on Social Enterprise Funding.

http://www.se-networks.net/sportconf12form.php

[Guest somner9]

Dicko doesn't know either then? Anyone know who is putting up the loan (i.e. the individuals/groups making up the loan)?,

Social enterprise funding, means anyone that wants to become involved. Who exactly is involved with the cic

[Stuart Dickson]

Dicko doesn't know either then? Anyone know who is putting up the loan (i.e. the individuals/groups making up the loan)?,

Social enterprise funding, means anyone that wants to become involved. Who exactly is involved with the cic

http://www.businessl...&type=RESOURCES

http://www.startups.co.uk/how-to-fund-a-social-enterprise.html

You should really get along to the Conference Somner9 - it'll help your understanding no end.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Stuart Dickson

[RickMcD]

Does anyone want to know who is putting up this £1million pound loan? Shouldn't the detail of that be available to pledgers and potential pledgers alike? Why the secrecy?

Honestly, somner9, as someone who has always had some sympathy with your views and some of your questions, I think enough is enough and I really feel that for the good of St.Mirren you want to give it a rest. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with some aspects of the set-up and I'm unhappy that a few directors appear to have been treated a bit shabbily but there appears to be virtually total agreement that the CIC/ Co-Op is the best route for St.Mirren so for goodness sake let's get bloody well on with it.

I worked in investment markets for years and a golden rule with any form of equity investment is, if you can't afford to lose the money then don't do it. £10 or so a month over two years isn't a fortune and I imagine most fans attitude would be that they can afford it and they don't care a toss whether they see a return, provided St.Mirren FC benefits. £3,000 is a bit more to lose but I'm sure the guys putting it up will be equally realistic.

What has to be set in tablets of stone is that St.Mirren FC cannot be sold once the club is in the fans ownership. That has been stated over and over again so I assume it is true and can never change.

Those who are too uncomfortable to proceed should keep their hands in their pockets and I think it's time for the good of St.Mirren they keep their mouths shut. We've heard all the arguments ad nauseam. It's put up or shut up.

[Guest somner9]

http://www.businessl...&type=RESOURCES

http://www.startups....enterprise.html

You should really get along to the Conference Somner9 - it'll help your understanding no end.

Confirming you don't know

[Guest somner9]

Honestly, somner9, as someone who has always had some sympathy with your views and some of your questions, I think enough is enough and I really feel that for the good of St.Mirren you want to give it a rest. I'm still a bit uncomfortable with some aspects of the set-up and I'm unhappy that a few directors appear to have been treated a bit shabbily but there appears to be virtually total agreement that the CIC/ Co-Op is the best route for St.Mirren so for goodness sake let's get bloody well on with it.

I worked in investment markets for years and a golden rule with any form of equity investment is, if you can't afford to lose the money then don't do it. £10 or so a month over two years isn't a fortune and I imagine most fans attitude would be that they can afford it and they don't care a toss whether they see a return, provided St.Mirren FC benefits. £3,000 is a bit more to lose but I'm sure the guys putting it up will be equally realistic.

What has to be set in tablets of stone is that St.Mirren FC cannot be sold once the club is in the fans ownership. That has been stated over and over again so I assume it is true and can never change.

Those who are too uncomfortable to proceed should keep their hands in their pockets and I think it's time for the good of St.Mirren they keep their mouths shut. We've heard all the arguments ad nauseam. It's put up or shut up.

St Mirren Fc doesn't benefit from another company taking on £1.75million debt to buy 52% shareholding. thats the whole point!

It most certainly isn't set in tablets of stone that CiC ownership won't mean that if it falters it will be sold. REa told us this on these pages last week.

In fact with your investment head on surely you can see as others have identified that the club and the cic are much higher risk than what we have now. i.e. if the cic goes tits up! no one will want that, but they'll happily pick over the bones of the club that the cic have 52% of.

Shut Up??? if you don't like reading the truth don't!

[Stuart Dickson]

St Mirren Fc doesn't benefit from another company taking on £1.75million debt to buy 52% shareholding. thats the whole point!

It most certainly isn't set in tablets of stone that CiC ownership won't mean that if it falters it will be sold. REa told us this on these pages last week.

In fact with your investment head on surely you can see as others have identified that the club and the cic are much higher risk than what we have now. i.e. if the cic goes tits up! no one will want that, but they'll happily pick over the bones of the club that the cic have 52% of.

Shut Up??? if you don't like reading the truth don't!

A higher risk? Seriously? At the moment one company owns 52% of the share ownership. That represents the share ownership of five individuals who want to sell up and get out. At the same time we've got a major Scottish Football club on the brink of liquidation that has 40,000+ fans, some of whom are clearly very wealthy, who would do everything possible to ensure that Rangers FC continues in some form or another. As the desperation increases down Govan way you seriously think that there is less risk that a large bid might turn the heads of the five individuals at St Mirren, than a large bid would turn heads in a Community Owned club where 1000+ members have just one vote each.

You are bonkers Somner.....sorry mate....but you are.

[Guest somner9]

A cic that can't meet it's £1.75million debt commitments, loses members, takes revenue destined for the club, has to reduce playing budget, players leave and supporter numbers drop is much more a risky entity to takeover by a ipox newco than the current BoD. if you can't see that then you are seriously deluded!

Still wondering who exactly is loaning the CiC £1million or so???

[RickMcD]

St Mirren Fc doesn't benefit from another company taking on £1.75million debt to buy 52% shareholding. thats the whole point!

It most certainly isn't set in tablets of stone that CiC ownership won't mean that if it falters it will be sold. REa told us this on these pages last week.

In fact with your investment head on surely you can see as others have identified that the club and the cic are much higher risk than what we have now. i.e. if the cic goes tits up! no one will want that, but they'll happily pick over the bones of the club that the cic have 52% of.

Shut Up??? if you don't like reading the truth don't!

Give me the breakdown of the 'debt' of £1-75 m.

St Mirren Fc doesn't benefit from another company taking on £1.75million debt to buy 52% shareholding. thats the whole point!

It most certainly isn't set in tablets of stone that CiC ownership won't mean that if it falters it will be sold. REa told us this on these pages last week.

In fact with your investment head on surely you can see as others have identified that the club and the cic are much higher risk than what we have now. i.e. if the cic goes tits up! no one will want that, but they'll happily pick over the bones of the club that the cic have 52% of.

Shut Up??? if you don't like reading the truth don't!

I admit I worded my post badly. Of course shares can almost always be sold (St.Mirren's seem to take a long time) if you can find a buyer. I should have said without the consent of the fans who own the majority 52%. How much of the £1-75m is grants? I thought a fair bit was though I admit I don't know. When you say riskier, do you mean a riskier investment? If so that may have to be the case. The status quo is not available and if the CIC/Co-Op doesn't proceed soonish would you blame the syndicate if they lost patience and sold to the first bugger who came closest to matching their valuation? You seem broadly in support of community ownership principles but you just go on criticising the whole project.

I don't think anyone thinks that what is being proposed is beyond criticism but exactly what do you want? If you can come up with a scheme with no risk and no borrowings, I wish to hell you had told us about it a while ago.

[Stuart Dickson]

A cic that can't meet it's £1.75million debt commitments, loses members, takes revenue destined for the club, has to reduce playing budget, players leave and supporter numbers drop is much more a risky entity to takeover by a ipox newco than the current BoD. if you can't see that then you are seriously deluded!

Still wondering who exactly is loaning the CiC £1million or so???

I've told you who is funding it. It's all in those websites Somner. There's no funding from Craig Whyte, Collyer Bristow or Gary Withey.

And if you think St Mirren supporters are likely to put their club in the situation you suggest then you must have suffered a heavy blow to the head. I've got a low opinion of St Mirren fans in general but even I don't think they are likely to put their club in the position you are suggesting.

[Guest somner9]

I've told you who is funding it. It's all in those websites Somner. There's no funding from Craig Whyte, Collyer Bristow or Gary Withey.

And if you think St Mirren supporters are likely to put their club in the situation you suggest then you must have suffered a heavy blow to the head. I've got a low opinion of St Mirren fans in general but even I don't think they are likely to put their club in the position you are suggesting.

yes you quoted websites! but not the identities of who is putting up the loan.

The suggestion above is purely yours and sums up all your hate and bile towards all things paisley and st mirren. shame on you a grown man trying to start a playground fight

[div]

There are two funders who make up vast majority of the c £1m lending. I know exactly who they are but since it has not been published anywhere I am assuming that there is a reason why their names haven't been disclosed so I'm not going to list them here.

In addition to those two lenders there is additional funding from SMiSA (pending their members approval) and money from Richard himself.

That's it.