The 10000Hours Numbers Explained

[Bud the Baker]

Yeah I would think any emails would get a response fairly quickly to be honest.

I did get a reply - just not as quickly as with you.

[beyond our ken]

With the deal to buy the club now agreed in principal with the selling consortium, it is up to the St.Mirren supporters to back the bid in sufficient numbers to give sufficient confidence in the business model to allow 10000Hours to go ahead and finalise the deal.

In short, 10000Hours is borrowing all of the money involved to do the deal and, like any loan, it's backers need to know they will get their dosh back.

Here is a rough model of how the numbers stack up as far as I am aware. I think this makes the whole thing clearer but maybe not.

I am using a few guesses and assumptions below, as I genuinely don't know exact figures relating to the agreed sale price or the amount being borrowed and at what level of interest.

Sale Price

The much touted sale price of the club was £2m. Whilst I do not know the exact figure that has been agreed in principle between the selling consortium and 10000Hours it is fair to assume I think that it will be a bit less than that. Let's for arguments sake say it is £1.75m. Might be more might be less.

Social Investment Funding

10000Hours has support for loans in place of somewhere around £1m. That money will come from social funders, plus contributions from the likes of SMiSA (if their members are still backing this - not sure if that is the case but sure one of those guys can give an insight).

The Funding Gap

So that leaves us with a difference of £1.75m less £1m = £750k. That money is due to the selling consortium as part of the deal. This money was originally coming from another lender, but they backed out of the deal at the last minute last year which caused the original deal to collapse.

I believe the selling consortium may have agreed that this "gap" can be paid back to them over a period say of 2 years. Similarly I believe the social investment funders are supportive that repayments on their loans do not need to start for a matching period of 2 years.

So, 10000Hours has 2 years in which to repay the funding gap, before it then starts to tackle the repayments of social investment loans.

Hope that makes sense and you are following !

The First Two Years - Where does the money come from ?

Let's say 1500 individual members each pay £10 per month and join 10000Hours. This equates to £15k per month, £180k per annum

Over two years that is £360k of income to 10000Hours.

The "87 Club" will offer individuals and local businesses lifetime membership of 10000Hours and a range of additional benefits that will be announced soon. These members will still only have one vote though. Their contribution will be £3k each one off.

If the 87 club allocation is fully taken up that equates to additional income of 87 x £3k = £261k

10000Hours proposes to rent the vacant void in the main stand and fit out as a supporters bar and function area. Lets suppose they can make £50k per annum profit from that. I am not sure what the deal is with the fit out costs are for that void but that is important obviously !

So over 2 years 10000Hours has;

Individual memberships = £360k

87 Club = £261k

Supporters Function/Bar = £100k

Total = £721k

So just short of meeting the funding gap (assuming it is interest free and assuming the figure I guessed is right !) but not a million miles away.

What happens after 2 years ?

Assuming the funding gap has been paid off now 10000Hours starts to tackle the repayments to the lenders. These lending agreements are over quite long periods, say 5-7 years or so. Remember at this point that steady income is coming in to 10000Hours at a rate of £180k per year from individual members and £50k a year from the void.

So they have £230k coming in. This obviously assumes no drop off and no increase in memberships.

The hope of course by this time is that 10000Hours is also able to raise further revenue by using the energy and ideas of it's members to generate funds, whilst at the same time the organisation will be looking to meet the conditions of those loans (and potentially reducing the amount payable) by delivering tangible social benefits to the local community.

I do not know what interest rates those loans are repayable at but it is fair to say that £1m of loans repayable over 5-7 years can be serviced against income of £230k per annum, especially if there is even more than that coming in.

What happens after all the money is paid off ?

Lets assume it takes 7 years from completion of the deal in 2012 to pay off every penny of lending.

In 2019 10000Hours has no borrowing, but still has, if members don't increase or decrease and all other situations stay exactly the same, income of £230k per annum. The members of 10000Hours would decide what happens to that funding but strikes me that it might be invested into the football club ?

Why the numbers are important.

You can see for yourself in the mock examples above that the individual and 87 club membership numbers are absolutely vital to the whole business model.

Without the right number of pledgers the business model simply does not work. With more members the funds are repaid off quicker and the organisation can begin to start supporting the football club business sooner.

It is important to realise that through all of the above the intention has to be that the revenues of the football club itself are not harmed in any way. The investment into 10000Hours needs to be "new" investment that does not harm income to St.Mirren FC. The rental of the void for example should provide the inverse, where the club starts to make revenue from currently vacant property.

Interested to know the thoughts on the above !

My Thoughts?

All of your figures are estimates, therefore this post is as speculative as any other on this subject, on this forum

Next thought, if the TTH figures need to be explained, should it not be themselves who provide a definitive account?

[BLF]

If the fans stopped being members en masse and turned their back on 10000Hours for whatever reason, leading to 10000Hours being unable to meet their loan repayments then one of the following two things would happen;

1) The deal with the funders would be restructured to meet the income that was still coming in

Or

2) The majority shareholding that 10000Hours owned in St.Mirren Football Club Ltd would likely be sold to the highest bidder

Given the prospect of (2) happening then I would hope that St.Mirren supporters wouldn't turn their back on 10000Hours.

This is the scenario that puts me off a fair bit.

What you're saying here div, is that if this goes badly wrong, our options are either continue with a broken model or sell to the highest bidder (potentially a forced sale)

In that sense, this whole plan is a gamble - it's never been done before, the numbers are estimated and there is not much in the way of a fail safe.

I support the aims of community ownership and I am happy we are trying to explore ways to achieve this but if there is a catastrophic failure of this model St Mirren are not protected at all IMO.

[Stuart Dickson]

This is the scenario that puts me off a fair bit.

What you're saying here div, is that if this goes badly wrong, our options are either continue with a broken model or sell to the highest bidder (potentially a forced sale)

In that sense, this whole plan is a gamble - it's never been done before, the numbers are estimated and there is not much in the way of a fail safe.

I support the aims of community ownership and I am happy we are trying to explore ways to achieve this but if there is a catastrophic failure of this model St Mirren are not protected at all IMO.

BLF, if I was to believe everything I read on these forums these 1000 odd pledger's are all die hard St Mirren fans, so passionate about their football club they'd never do as I did and turn their back on the team. Yet here you are speculating that there is a risk that those mad keen passionate fans with only the best interests at heart, may all cancel their membership at the same time in order to force the sale of the club to the highest bidder.

The way I see it is that if this thing works in the way it should it will continue to recruit new members long after the purchase of the club - however I do think that something will need to be offered in return for the money.

[bingboy]

This is the scenario that puts me off a fair bit.

What you're saying here div, is that if this goes badly wrong, our options are either continue with a broken model or sell to the highest bidder (potentially a forced sale)

In that sense, this whole plan is a gamble - it's never been done before, the numbers are estimated and there is not much in the way of a fail safe.

I support the aims of community ownership and I am happy we are trying to explore ways to achieve this but if there is a catastrophic failure of this model St Mirren are not protected at all IMO.

And we are only protected at the moment by the fact that the present owners only wish to sell to someone with Saints best interests at heart.

Future owners may not be so inclined and could sell to any Tom, Dick or Craig Whyte if the money was right.

At least with the CIC proposal the future of the club will be largely in the fans hands.

There are no guarantees either way, I accept that, but the risk is lower with the CIC option imo.

[Big Fras]

If KMG is about as welcome as a bar of Cousin's Imperial Leather in the Cartsdyke area, then why should Richard end up punting an extra £750k to The Consortium. The CiC seems to be the only show in town, and would be in a position to call the shots, to some degree.

Although signed up, I'd be much, much happier if the buying price was trimmed down (there appears to be no bugger else on the horizon). The BoD would get their well-deserved cut (at least the Consortium guys would), and the impressive number of pledgers (c.1000, plus "87 Club") would see their monthly contributions impact on the playing staff budget a lot quicker.......and I'd bet that is what the majority of pledgers want: CiC fan ownership improving the team budget to the betterment of St.Mirren FC.

If the alternative is taking years to pay-off an uneccessarily high lump to the consortium, then I can see many getting p*ssed off as they don't see the actual team & player budget benefitting from their membership.

I've been a critic, but the CiC model offers a unique opportunity, that we might as well go far in a "might as well try it" fashion, and the fan ownership idea is good - just ask any Man U fan (Hello SPS !).

However, let's not see the initial waves & momentum, of goodwill & optmism, disappear within 1 year as people start looking for signs of positive impact on the playing staff.......but don't see that much of a positive financial impact compared to what £ is being brought in by members. This is because the £ is going to pay off the consortium at a price that nobody - nobody - was coming close to paying. SG & the gang get a pay-out anyway....I just rather that my monthly subs are going on the wages of the next Billy Abercromby or Frank Mcavennie quicker than they look set to be.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Big Fras

[Stuart Dickson]

If KMG is about as welcome as a bar of Cousin's Imperial Leather in the Cartsdyke area, then why should Richard end up punting an extra £750k to The Consortium. The CiC seems to be the only show in town, and would be in a position to call the shots, to some degree.

Although signed up, I'd be much, much happier if the buying price was trimmed down (there appears to be no bugger else on the horizon). The BoD would get their well-deserved cut (at least the Consortium guys would), and the impressive number of pledgers (c.1000, plus "87 Club") would see their monthly contributions impact on the playing staff budget a lot quicker.......and I'd bet that is what the majority of pledgers want: CiC fan ownership improving the team budget to the betterment of St.Mirren FC.

If the alternative is taking years to pay-off an uneccessarily high lump to the consortium, then I can see many getting p*ssed off as they don't see the actual team & player budget benefitting from their membership.

I've been a critic, but the CiC model offers a unique opportunity, that we might as well go far in a "might as well try it" fashion, and the fan ownership idea is good - just ask any Man U fan (Hello SPS !).

However, let's not see the initial waves & momentum, of goodwill & optmism, disappear within 1 year as people start looking for signs of positive impact on the playing staff.......but don't see that much of a positive financial impact compared to what £ is being brought in by members. This is because the £ is going to pay off the consortium at a price that nobody - nobody - was coming close to paying. SG & the gang get a pay-out anyway....I just rather that my monthly subs are going on the wages of the next Billy Abercromby or Frank Mcavennie quicker than they look set to be.

Fraser - correct me if I'm wrong but Abercrombie was recruited from school, McAvennie was signed from Johnstone Burgh. Neither had a massive impact on the playing budget - and neither would be unaffordable if they pitched up at Greenhill Road again tomorrow and yet that's the fourth or fifth time on this thread that I've seen a St Mirren supporter talking about 10000hours in terms of excess money going into the playing budget. Now I know I'm probably going out on a limb here but wouldn't it be better if instead of wasting cash paying yet another couple of journeymen wages to sit on the subs bench - if the money was spent on setting up sustainable projects and infrastructure instead.

[Guest somner9]

The figures as explained by Div, with I assume some sort of 'sense check' or sourced from conversations with 10000 hours don't allow for any contribution to a larger budget for the playing staff, or any other budget at the club!

They only seek (if achieved) to pay off the loans to funders and sale price to the consortium. There are as these figures display not a single bean extra to invest in SMFC, in fact if the numbers/contributions aren't or maybe just are achieved, it probably represents a cut in monies available to DL and the other depts at the club.

£50K profit estimate for the supporters bar is way, way optimistic. (Ask the licencees of The Argyll, Paddy's, Bar Point etc, etc) Plus as far as we can GUESS! this profit will be going straight back to whoever is putting up the hundreds of thousands of pounds required to fit it out! I can see that following in the path of so many social clubs that borrowed from the brewery to fund a refurb/extension and could never pay back the brewery as profits forecast never materialised.

The CiC is the only bidder for a price the club is not worth. How so? as with any property or business it's only worth what someone will pay for it! And we have seen over a period of two years now that no one actually wants to pay what the consortium want!

Funders pulled out, pledgers are not conviced in sufficent numbers, and other bidders apparently have offered significantly less.

This all means something!!! hello!!!

One tiny sight of a cold post CiC inception, a cough, a sneeze could see the club lying in a similar terminal position to that of the 'Big Hoose' doon the road the consortium insist they don't want near us. Given the commitments the club and the CiC will have post inception, and the fact no one sees the current valuation as realistic??? Who, or How the hell would we get out of this mess if we simply catch a cold???

Is the club (SMFC) or the CiC liable for the loan/investment thats being made to fit out the bar??? Is it still being run by the Kibble? what if they make a pigs ear of it? they don't have any experience, or history in setting up, operating, and running at a profit such a business...

The loans/funders/consortium that need to be paid off, in conjunction with the people putting up the money for the bar fit out that need paying off highlight there simply isn't the realistic chance of getting the necesssary return to just stay still, never mind move forward in any way. If there were then you'd have other people offering similar amounts to buy 52% of SMFC

That's not an opinion, that's just business!

[Big Fras]

Fraser - correct me if I'm wrong but Abercrombie was recruited from school, McAvennie was signed from Johnstone Burgh. Neither had a massive impact on the playing budget - and neither would be unaffordable if they pitched up at Greenhill Road again tomorrow and yet that's the fourth or fifth time on this thread that I've seen a St Mirren supporter talking about 10000hours in terms of excess money going into the playing budget. Now I know I'm probably going out on a limb here but wouldn't it be better if instead of wasting cash paying yet another couple of journeymen wages to sit on the subs bench - if the money was spent on setting up sustainable projects and infrastructure instead.

I'd agree with that Stuart - my only concern is that CiC fund-raising is initially going to be heading into paying off what would appear to be a purchase price that nobody else wants to pay. I'd be happier if the buying price was reduced, and the CiC funds could then materialise quicker into sustainable projects, infrastructure, and goal-scoring binmen from Possil. Other than that, there doesn't seem too much wrong with the concept.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

One tiny sight of a cold post CiC inception, a cough, a sneeze could see the club lying in a similar terminal position to that of the 'Big Hoose' doon the road the consortium insist they don't want near us. Given the commitments the club and the CiC will have post inception, and the fact no one sees the current valuation as realistic??? Who, or How the hell would we get out of this mess if we simply catch a cold???

So are you seriously saying that if 10000Hours bid goes through and some subscribers pledges withdraw support from the CIC/ Co-op then St Mirren, with zero bank debt, up to date on tax payments etc will suffer the same fate as r*ngers: under investigation for around 20 years of double contracts, illegal use of EBT scheme and tax debts of up to £93m and other non-tax debts of around £40m and rising... and in administration now and facing possible liquidation?

Scaremongering perhaps?

Is it not a whole lot more likely that if pledgers catch a cold, as you put it, then the leners will either 1) renegotiate the length of the loans or 2) sell the 52% majority shareholding that 10000Hours would own, and assuming they have made decent headway into repayments after a year or two you are looking at the lenders slapping a lower asking price on the 52% shareholding than the consortium did?

Please explain how you would see 10000Hours defaulting on payments to lenders equaling St Mirren FC entering administration or even facing liquidation.

[aldo_j]

A lot of people keep mentioning the price the CIC will pay the consortium is too high.

Out of interest, what do they value the club at? As someone that has never bought a football club I've no idea how to value such a thing.

Another point, also been some comments about investment in playing budget. I don't agree with investment in playing budget as it means we are overspending. The only money spent on playing budget should be generated solely by the club. No outside investment should be used....f**k being in Hearts position where their wage/turnover ratio is unbelievable.

[Scott Lyle]

A lot of people keep mentioning the price the CIC will pay the consortium is too high.

Out of interest, what do they value the club at? As someone that has never bought a football club I've no idea how to value such a thing.

Another point, also been some comments about investment in playing budget. I don't agree with investment in playing budget as it means we are overspending. The only money spent on playing budget should be generated solely by the club. No outside investment should be used....f**k being in Hearts position where their wage/turnover ratio is unbelievable.

Do you think the club is worth £4m?

[aldo_j]

I don't know what the value is, hence why I asked the question.

Without knowing the investment made by the current BOD, the value of any assets at the club then I can't make that decision.

[Guest somner9]

So are you seriously saying that if 10000Hours bid goes through and some subscribers pledges withdraw support from the CIC/ Co-op then St Mirren, with zero bank debt, up to date on tax payments etc will suffer the same fate as r*ngers: under investigation for around 20 years of double contracts, illegal use of EBT scheme and tax debts of up to £93m and other non-tax debts of around £40m and rising... and in administration now and facing possible liquidation?

Scaremongering perhaps?

Is it not a whole lot more likely that if pledgers catch a cold, as you put it, then the leners will either 1) renegotiate the length of the loans or 2) sell the 52% majority shareholding that 10000Hours would own, and assuming they have made decent headway into repayments after a year or two you are looking at the lenders slapping a lower asking price on the 52% shareholding than the consortium did?

Please explain how you would see 10000Hours defaulting on payments to lenders equaling St Mirren FC entering administration or even facing liquidation.

Thanks for adding all your own spin on there as normal words and meaning highlighted I never inserted, sure you don't work for the daily ranger?

The fact of the matter is the estimated revenue streams Div has highlighted for us don't appear to cover the current outgoings, let alone pay off the selling consortium and funders.T

The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about where is the £300 - £450k to re-fit the void into bar coming from??? and how is it going to be paid back, and who is liable? The club (SMFC) or the CIC???

You can spin on that anyway you like, but until that info is disclosed then many will not commit to pledging.

What some people fail to realise, or are perhaps naive about is the day the CiC comes into inception a helluva lot more outgoings are required by the CiC and unless we know differently the club than incoming revenue.

Remember 10000 hours told us the loans/funding would be paid for by the enhanced trading of smfc, I assume that now includes paying the selling consortium too.

Currently we don't pay any of the above, but somehow miraculously we'll be able to so so when the CiC kicks off, and be able to swallow cashflow problems like the £100k maxi group lent the club (not the Cic) last year. The figures don't stack up

[10000hours]

Thanks for adding all your own spin on there as normal words and meaning highlighted I never inserted, sure you don't work for the daily ranger?

The fact of the matter is the estimated revenue streams Div has highlighted for us don't appear to cover the current outgoings, let alone pay off the selling consortium and funders.T

The elephant in the room no one wants to talk about where is the £300 - £450k to re-fit the void into bar coming from??? and how is it going to be paid back, and who is liable? The club (SMFC) or the CIC???

You can spin on that anyway you like, but until that info is disclosed then many will not commit to pledging.

What some people fail to realise, or are perhaps naive about is the day the CiC comes into inception a helluva lot more outgoings are required by the CiC and unless we know differently the club than incoming revenue.

Remember 10000 hours told us the loans/funding would be paid for by the enhanced trading of smfc, I assume that now includes paying the selling consortium too.

Currently we don't pay any of the above, but somehow miraculously we'll be able to so so when the CiC kicks off, and be able to swallow cashflow problems like the £100k maxi group lent the club (not the Cic) last year. The figures don't stack up

Afternoon.

Above has been explained at the meetings on the forums and if you check back you will see I even invited you, publically, to come and meet to discuss such matters as this if you search back on the forum.

To deal with your points in the one post.

We have the pricing to fit out the void. It is no where near the price you suggest. The money to do this comes from a number of the community partners.

In return the community partners get to use the void and the rest of the stadium on an ammortized basis, while the Club gets to use the void for its additional use.

As has been said many times if the CIC uses the void to earn money it gets to keep it.

If the Club uses the void to earn money it keeps it

And if it is ajoint effort then the money is split correctly.

Once the Cost of the fit out has been ammortized the CIC will then pay a full commercial rent to the Club for the space. This is a well established commercial procedure that a normal landlord may undertake when renting an unfurnished space to a tennent which the tennant then improves in exchange for an initial peppercorn rent.

All of this detail has been put out in various forms before do you feel it has now all been "disclosed"

As for the other points you make I am not sure I understand what you mean by "helluva lot more outgoings" if you could tell me what you mean I will comment

[Guest somner9]

Afternoon.

Above has been explained at the meetings on the forums and if you check back you will see I even invited you, publically, to come and meet to discuss such matters as this if you search back on the forum.

To deal with your points in the one post.

We have the pricing to fit out the void. It is no where near the price you suggest. The money to do this comes from a number of the community partners.

In return the community partners get to use the void and the rest of the stadium on an ammortized basis, while the Club gets to use the void for its additional use.

As has been said many times if the CIC uses the void to earn money it gets to keep it.

If the Club uses the void to earn money it keeps it

And if it is ajoint effort then the money is split correctly.

Once the Cost of the fit out has been ammortized the CIC will then pay a full commercial rent to the Club for the space. This is a well established commercial procedure that a normal landlord may undertake when renting an unfurnished space to a tennent which the tennant then improves in exchange for an initial peppercorn rent.

All of this detail has been put out in various forms before do you feel it has now all been "disclosed"

As for the other points you make I am not sure I understand what you mean by "helluva lot more outgoings" if you could tell me what you mean I will comment

Quote: "no where near the price you suggest. The money to do this comes from a number of the community partners."

My follow up questions would be, How much? and who are the community partners?

Quote: "In return the community partners get to use the void and the rest of the stadium on an ammortized basis, while the Club gets to use the void for its additional use."

simply put does this mean the community partners have type of "mortgage" payment arrangement over void/bar profit, and as you mention use of the stadium?

How long is it envisaged said peppercorn rental rate would be paid to the club? presumably the repayment of costs to the community partners funding the fit out dictates this?

My helluva lot more outgoings when the CiC comes into inception relates to the current state - v - future state:

Current state - the shareholders of the club (all of them) have control of the club, and use the revenue of the club to meet outgoings

Future state - the CiC has majority shareholding, needs to generate revenue in addition to that which the club presently does to meet it's obligations to: Funders/Loans/Selling Consortium and the ammortized arrangement with community void funders.

Form current to future state, thats a helluva a lot more obligations to meet IMHO.

Sorry almost forgot is "Matchday Bar" use of the void a CiC or Club type usage?

Edited April 18, 2012 by somner9

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Thanks for adding all your own spin on there as normal words and meaning highlighted I never inserted, sure you don't work for the daily ranger?

The fact of the matter is the estimated revenue streams Div has highlighted for us don't appear to cover the current outgoings, let alone pay off the selling consortium and funders

So pray tell somner9, in your own words and without me adding any spin ala the Daily Ranger, how would a post-10000Hours & St Mirren FC combo be in danger of ending up like r*ngers are now? The floor is all yours.

As far as Div's figures goes I am guessing he was attempting to explain roughly how a 10000Hours takeover might be funded and what kind of repayments would be made and was making the point that with the current level of pledges and signed DD forms and interest in the 87 Club that it was possible there is almost enough support already to make the takeover happen?

[div]

Future state - the CiC has majority shareholding, needs to generate revenue in addition to that which the club presently does to meet it's obligations to: Funders/Loans/Selling Consortium and the ammortized arrangement with community void funders.

Form current to future state, thats a helluva a lot more obligations to meet IMHO.

Gilmour Sports must also have a helluvas lot of olbigtions to meet as well, but I'm not entirely sure what the obligations of the majority shareholders has to do with the obligations of the football club.

It's vitally important that we distinguish between 10000Hours and St.Mirren FC here.

The football club will have no new debt but will have a new facility that it can generate revenue from. I see only upside there.

The money that goes into 10000Hours won't be 100% "new" funds, I can see an argument where a sponsor here or there might decide to join the 87 club instead of taking a table at hospitality or an advertising board. Nobody can say that definitely won't happen but as far as I can work out the vast majority of the funding coming in to 10000Hours is going to be "new" money.

What obligations of the FOOTBALL CLUB do you see changing if 10000Hours is successful in buying the majority shareholding of the club ?

[10000hours]

Quote: "no where near the price you suggest. The money to do this comes from a number of the community partners."

My follow up questions would be, How much? and who are the community partners?

Quote: "In return the community partners get to use the void and the rest of the stadium on an ammortized basis, while the Club gets to use the void for its additional use."

simply put does this mean the community partners have type of "mortgage" payment arrangement over void/bar profit, and as you mention use of the stadium?

How long is it envisaged said peppercorn rental rate would be paid to the club? presumably the repayment of costs to the community partners funding the fit out dictates this?

My helluva lot more outgoings when the CiC comes into inception relates to the current state - v - future state:

Current state - the shareholders of the club (all of them) have control of the club, and use the revenue of the club to meet outgoings

Future state - the CiC has majority shareholding, needs to generate revenue in addition to that which the club presently does to meet it's obligations to: Funders/Loans/Selling Consortium and the ammortized arrangement with community void funders.

Form current to future state, thats a helluva a lot more obligations to meet IMHO.

Approx £100K but depends on some of the finishes. The desire is to put some high quality AV in the fit out so that it works well for music.

Sorry but for the moment the identity of all of them is not public, though it would not take much guessing to work it out.

Ammortized is the correct description not Mortgate. They spend X amount fitting it out for their and the Clubs use and get to discount that agains use of the other parts of the stadium, all in means is that the more others use the stadium the faster the Fit Out is Amortized and the faster the CIC ends up paying a commmercial price form the void to the club.

It is just a balance. The Peppercorn is part of this.

Still dont get your "Obligations" bit they are two separte companies the obligations of one do not transfer to the other.

The Club will still have to meet its obligations from its income....although it will now have an additional usable space to earn money from

The CiC will have to meet its obligations from its income.....its members Subs and the earnings from the facilty that it has fitted out.

Your comparison is akin to saying that the Curent Shareholders that have debts for the mortgages on their houses somehow messes with the funding of the day 2 day running of the club?

The Club is no more responsible for the Obligations of its individual shareholders now (e.g their mortgates) than the Club would be responsible for the Obligations of a singla Large Shareholder in this case the CIC.

Do you agree yet?

[Guest somner9]

So pray tell somner9, in your own words and without me adding any spin ala the Daily Ranger, how would a post-10000Hours & St Mirren FC combo be in danger of ending up like r*ngers are now? The floor is all yours.

As far as Div's figures goes I am guessing he was attempting to explain roughly how a 10000Hours takeover might be funded and what kind of repayments would be made and was making the point that with the current level of pledges and signed DD forms and interest in the 87 Club that it was possible there is almost enough support already to make the takeover happen?

Simples! like last year the club needed £100k loan to get through, post CiC it will have all the associated obligations to meet on top of business as usual which we know came up at least £100k short last season.

Not enough incomings to meet obliged outgoings, and any little cashflow 'cough' compounds that scenario. in only this respect I compared it to the mob down the road who have been in that situation mind! for allegedly many, many years.

Takeover is one thing, operating efficently and meeting all obligations is indeed another

[Guest somner9]

Approx £100K but depends on some of the finishes. The desire is to put some high quality AV in the fit out so that it works well for music.

Sorry but for the moment the identity of all of them is not public, though it would not take much guessing to work it out.

Ammortized is the correct description not Mortgate. They spend X amount fitting it out for their and the Clubs use and get to discount that agains use of the other parts of the stadium, all in means is that the more others use the stadium the faster the Fit Out is Amortized and the faster the CIC ends up paying a commmercial price form the void to the club.

It is just a balance. The Peppercorn is part of this.

Still dont get your "Obligations" bit they are two separte companies the obligations of one do not transfer to the other.

The Club will still have to meet its obligations from its income....although it will now have an additional usable space to earn money from

The CiC will have to meet its obligations from its income.....its members Subs and the earnings from the facilty that it has fitted out.

Your comparison is akin to saying that the Curent Shareholders that have debts for the mortgages on their houses somehow messes with the funding of the day 2 day running of the club?

The Club is no more responsible for the Obligations of its individual shareholders now (e.g their mortgates) than the Club would be responsible for the Obligations of a singla Large Shareholder in this case the CIC.

Do you agree yet?

I think your current shareholders mortgage analargy is barmy! just my opinion. But i get the gist about the Void/bar the community partners I presume will recoup their investment (however we define it!) through activity in the bar/void and their use of the stadium. Am I right in suggesting they aren't solely going to be reimbursed by use of the stadium/void alone?

It is still an important factor for me be it the CiC or the Club that from inception via subs/new revenue streams etc, etc much more will have to be found out of activities in and around St Mirren park, and despite how you explain it many will see the two inextricably linked.

final repeat question matchday bar void use? CiC or Club event?

[Guest somner9]

Gilmour Sports must also have a helluvas lot of olbigtions to meet as well, but I'm not entirely sure what the obligations of the majority shareholders has to do with the obligations of the football club.

It's vitally important that we distinguish between 10000Hours and St.Mirren FC here.

The football club will have no new debt but will have a new facility that it can generate revenue from. I see only upside there.

The money that goes into 10000Hours won't be 100% "new" funds, I can see an argument where a sponsor here or there might decide to join the 87 club instead of taking a table at hospitality or an advertising board. Nobody can say that definitely won't happen but as far as I can work out the vast majority of the funding coming in to 10000Hours is going to be "new" money.

What obligations of the FOOTBALL CLUB do you see changing if 10000Hours is successful in buying the majority shareholding of the club ?

Activities/revenue streams generated in and around St Mirren park will have to meet these new obligations. Simply if the club has a £250k cashflow cough next season, where is it likely to come from? With the initial Cic obligations and the need to pay back the consortium on top will the CiC be expcted to meet a cashflow cough like this?

[div]

Activities/revenue streams generated in and around St Mirren park will have to meet these new obligations. Simply if the club has a £250k cashflow cough next season, where is it likely to come from? With the initial Cic obligations and the need to pay back the consortium on top will the CiC be expcted to meet a cashflow cough like this?

The obligations of 10000Hours will be met by individual and 87club membership subscriptions. None of these subscriptions currently exist so new income meets new obligations as far as I can see. These obligations are nothing to do with the club, same as if I ran out and borrowed £2m to buy the club tomorrow, the obligation is on me to repay that money, not the club.

None of the member benefits to the 87 club will cost the club a penny, in actual fact the reverse is true as some of them will generate additional revenue for the club.

The same will be true for the individual memberships, none of the benefits will cost the football club revenue.

I'm not sure I'd call £250k a cough, something would seriously have gone wrong if the cashflow bump was that big. I daresay that Maxi might be around to smooth it over as they did last year but you are dead right to make the point about cashflow - it is a big concern.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

I think your current shareholders mortgage analargy is barmy! just my opinion.

Is an analargy a cross between an allergy and an analogy?

[Drew]

Is an analargy a cross between an allergy and an analogy?

Whatever it is, its certainly not to be sniffed at.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Drew