Jump to content

The 10000Hours Numbers Explained


div
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not sure what you are driving at with the line "am i right in suggesting...." you seem to be suggesting that you know something more than more about the whole topic than you have been letting on in your questions so far.

However your suggestion is incorrect I am not even sure I understand what other way you think exists form the organisations to be reinbursed.

All I can do is explain it, not sure what else I can do if you dont accept the explanation. The vast/vast majorty of the funding to pay back the Social Enterprise based debt comes for the membership subs, with a very small amount budgeted against the actual trading of things like the void, so we believe there is plenty of headroom in the numbers.

You say that "many" will understand it the way you have presented the question is do you now understand it the way I have described it and we will let the "many" others make their minds up?

As for your last question, I repeat again if CIC run CIC money, IF Club Run Club Money if a Bit of Both then a Bit of Both. the specifics of the Bar on a matchday will come down to how it is run. I suspect it will all be CIC initially operated but this could change and develop and in any event that club from Day 1 of the void being avaliable will be able to use it for its own dedicated bookings for the likes of 21st Bday's and music based events etc, which are sometimes not suitable for the main hospitality area.

Convinced Yet?

Why are you attacking an individual on this forum??.......If he is in the minority of 1 then leave him alone. He has the right on this forum to say what he wants but you still want to demean him. Shame on you Richard Atkinson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Why are you attacking an individual on this forum??.......If he is in the minority of 1 then leave him alone. He has the right on this forum to say what he wants but you still want to demean him. Shame on you Richard Atkinson.

If Somner or you feel I am attacking anyone then I apologize.

That is certainly not my intention, i thought my above email was just answering the questions he posed.

I dont think I am being aggressive and I am certainly not using any vulgar or rude langauge, I am just trying to address Somners points and trying to get past what he is saying the "many" believe in order to deal with his own questions where we can actually know what "he" believes

Again Apologies if this is being seen as and attack and demeaning it is mearly a response to his line of questioning which is what the Forum is about

As I have said many times both publically, privately and indeed i think on this forum I have no problem, at all, if folk do not want to be involved my aim is to make sure that everyone has as much information and chance to have their questions answered so that they can make up their minds as an informed decision, rather than based or rumour, assumption or misinformation.

Nothing more than that

Edited by 10000hours
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you attacking an individual on this forum??.......If he is in the minority of 1 then leave him alone. He has the right on this forum to say what he wants but you still want to demean him. Shame on you Richard Atkinson.

Damned for not answering questions and now damned for answering questions !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incredible restraint. I said right from the early days of this that St Mirren fans were too stupid to get it. Many, many months on Reborn Saint is still doing his best to prove me right. I quite like Somner, despite him being spineless and gutless but I have to say I'm like 10000hours. Maybe it's just my narrow focus but I can't for the life of me understand why Somner is still struggling with what is being explained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Somner or you feel I am attacking anyone then I apologize.

That is certainly not my intention, i thought my above email was just answering the questions he posed.

I dont think I am being aggressive and I am certainly not using any vulgar or rude langauge, I am just trying to address Somners points and trying to get past what he is saying the "many" believe in order to deal with his own questions where we can actually know what "he" believes

Again Apologies if this is being seen as and attack and demeaning it is mearly a response to his line of questioning which is what the Forum is about

As I have said many times both publically, privately and indeed i think on this forum I have no problem, at all, if folk do not want to be involved my aim is to make sure that everyone has as much information and chance to have their questions answered so that they can make up their minds as an informed decision, rather than based or rumour, assumption or misinformation.

Nothing more than that

I support the bid but he dosn't ...he dosn't want to meet you as he has made clear ...so why do you insist in asking him to do so??..........Poor show Richard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the bid but he dosn't ...he dosn't want to meet you as he has made clear ...so why do you insist in asking him to do so??..........Poor show Richard.

Where am I insisting that he meets me??

several months ago I said I was happy to meet him if he wanted and he declined, no problem with that, thought it was just polite to offer as he had some good ideas and input to make in honing the idea I felt.

The post is public on the forum somewhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Got an e-mail today from a fellow exiled Bud (Bill Doran - now residing in Taunton, Zzzzooomerzet if anyone on here knows him).

Must stress here that I don't agree with all of what is being posted below, but he asked me as a "one-off" to stick it on anyway (says he "doesn't do fan forums").

Disclaimer: BigFras does not necessarily associate himself with the following, but it may provoke some comments.

Take it away "West Country Saint" Bill Doran:

The CIC is a worthy concept but only if it pays the correct commercial value.

Was it not mentioned somewhere on this forum section a while ago, that The Consortium and REA have formed a limited company together. Is this to deal with the transfer of shares ?

This whole thing seems to be 100% an exercise in getting The Consortium the maximum value for their shares whilst discrediting ANY other bids, all the while the supporters are being asked to fund the "shortfall". Nobody else has come close to the £2m figure for a reason, so why is the CiC hell bent on paying it ? At best a conflict of interest. At worst an exercise in fleecing the fans and community to reward a small group of shareholders. Why does nobody hear alarm bells?

The forum guys can argue over peppercorn rents for "the void" until the cows come home but they don't seem concerned that 10000 hrs value the club almost 2 times what appears to be it's market value.

I never thought I would lose interest in St.Mirren but some of the ways this deal is being done, and the attempts to manipulate the support, really make me despair.

I never post on forums, although read this one a lot (better than the official site anyway). Can you stick this on the board big yin ?

And there we have it from zoider country. Don't shoot the messenger !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you attacking an individual on this forum??.......If he is in the minority of 1 then leave him alone. He has the right on this forum to say what he wants but you still want to demean him. Shame on you Richard Atkinson.

There was no attack. Knowing you, this morning you will claim it was a nice post.

Reminds me of my burd....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just leave him alone.........is that too much to ask?

Somner9 is asking questions, and arichard is attempting to answer them. I don't see what the problem is here ?

A couple of pages back people were moaning because Richard wasn't answering questions on here and now we have people moaning because he is !

Some people in here could start a fight in an empty room !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somner9 is asking questions, and arichard is attempting to answer them. I don't see what the problem is here ?

A couple of pages back people were moaning because Richard wasn't answering questions on here and now we have people moaning because he is !

Some people in here could start a fight in an empty room !

That's exactly what some people appear to want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

You spend a quiet evening watching a tall Ivorian footballer roll around like the great big jessie he is! and all hell breaks loose on here.

Reborn Saint - appreciate you're concern, you're right to highlight that the responses I get from ReA have more of a frisson of angst about them than most others, However not as bad as an attack, and not the same as the communication from A. N. other Bod member I was the surprised recipient of last week.

That said you are right again Reborn to highlight that I get under their skin (or as Cpl Jones/Kendo would say 'They don't like it up em', don't get me wrong that can ge a power for good if I or any other interested party get information they find useful from it.

Fact of the matter for me is given the questions asked, answers provided and information available everyone should be aware that on inception the CiC by definition does not have a reserve of funds to assist the football club (SMFC) when it has it's inevitable cashflow issues.

Consider the current issues at Ibrox and the declarations by many, many fans of spl clubs that say they won't be renewing their ST/matchday next season if a newco r*ngers is admitted to the spl?

Now no one can predict if this is what will happen, and if it does how many of those who pledged to blank the spl carry out that threat, but it would take a very small number of our fans to carry it out to have a massive effect on cashflow at the club. And that's an unusual event, not the kind of event that springs up most seasons when the best efforts of budgeting and cost control still leave us short.

This is my greatest fear, that once the excitement of taking control of 52% of my club has died down, the realisation that significant additional funds may need to be found in a heartbeat to keep business as usual ticking over, but there's no means to generate it quickly and no one willing to contribute significant additional subs to the CiC, with lets face it like BoD members (Most) over these years, little chance of ever recouping it.

The CiC sets out it will seek to generate additional revenue beyond subs/87, in reality for an as yet indetermined period of time it will need these to meet it's own obligations.

The void/bar is an important example, perhaps the greatest assumed! revenue generator post CiC, (And I use the word with the greatest confidence!) MANY would assume matchday bar revenue would be a club (SMFC) event? As in no SMFC no twenty odd matchday revenue ops per year.

As we now know this isn't the case, and won't be the case for an indetermined period of time! I fully accept that with no CiC there would be no Void/bar anyway, so what's the fuss about??? For me there is next to nothing in the way of additional revenue realistically expected to be available to the club (SMFC) for perhaps two years, or if estimates were over optimistic, longer.

I fully accept that why should the club (SMFC) expect there to be? Well here's the rub MANY actually expect that through their pledges/subs/87 memberships that the lot of SMFC will see an improvement, if within season one an event such as cashflow issue rears its head, can't be addressed, and the CiC loses it's credibility... we will be significantly worse off than we are now!

No one, repeat no one else wants to pay the selling consortium what the Cic are prepared to pay them. So it logically follows if the brown smelly stuff hits the "FANS" then no one will be prepared to bail out said overpriced entity, least not unless the bailers out can greatly profit from said bailing out.

Yes i agree let's let the MANY make up their minds and perhaps the FEW can stop trying to lean on the MANY?

Edited by somner9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The takeover of the club will involve a debt to someone somewhere regardless. Atkinsons debt will be to the CiC thing and separate from the football club. McGeochs plan looks like the club itself would be responsible for the takeover debt and it would be secured on the clubs assets in whatever way. You take your pick. I like the aspect of the fans being responsible for ownership, how that plays out I dinno, but it seems preferable to me. Any takeover will involve some element of finacial risk, whether it be via number of bodies paying direct debits or via our fortunes on the park reflecting club income and ability to repay the purchase debt. Either way it involves debt repayment and therefore risk. Is it a bad thing to have the fans themselves being responsible for the debt? That seems to be the main question. Will the fans stick with it for the long drag to debt free status? We would be directly responsible for our club at least, which is fairly appealing to me. You can decide for yourself what floats your boat. Get involved or let somebody else take the risk. Up to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a couple of fans who just don’t get it Reynard fair do’s. These same fans have had every answer put in front of them along with an invite for a private meeting with Richard. Personally I think these fans are share holders and as such can understand their disappointment , however surly they did not expect to make money long term from a football clubs shares.

Nothing else can be done to convince these fans to join. You rightly point out the risk factors of two bids. The only one that seems sensible is the fans buy out as no one else will take care of the club better long term.What drives Richard on I don’t know at least he knows the majority are behind him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here lies the crux of the problem. Rather than asking a specific question that can be answered we have ramblings, innuendos and agendas from individuals. Can a simple question not be asked that can provide a simple answer. If these posters have startling evidence to suggest that the CiC is conning the potential members then ask a question that can be answered by the CiC where they can be held accountable. Ramblings and innuendo is just tittle tattle and if anything assisting in helping the CiC cause.

Interpolated from a recent post.

  1. As 52% shareholder of the Club how can the CiC assist the Club in potential future financial shortfalls that it may encounter. (Please ignore that the fact that the CLUB is a completely different company and should be self-financed and not reliant on requiring its shareholders to pump additional funds into it )
  2. Who gets the profit from the bar during match day ?

Are we the fan really concerned that the CiC (not the Club) take empty space in the stadium, fit it out on their own (with some assistance from their members), then open it during match day for the benefit of its members where it could make a few hundred pounds profit for its own funds. Then allow the Club to use its facilities and keep the money.

To take that argument to the extreme what is to stop a “Craig Whyte type” open a matchday bar across from the stadium, fill it with saints fans then pocket the profit like every other bar in the town.

If these are the “smoking gun” questions that the fans at SMFC should be worried about then where is the CiC sign up form for me to sign up. There are other questions out there that should be asked and I am sure there are some plausible answers, some answers may be contractually sensitive.

Like

  1. Why does the Douglas Street Company not have all of the consortium members as Directors.
  2. Why does the Douglas Street Company have Laura Montgomery as a Director what role will she take in the Business
  3. Is there a proposal for Glasgow Womens Football to be based out of St Mirren Park.
  4. Should the CiC fail after the Consortium have had their payoff what is to stop them buying the control back for a fraction of what they received
  5. The business plan for the CiC appears to be based on certain member numbers being achieved. What is the absolute minimum member number to have a breakeven point in the CiC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be a couple of fans who just don’t get it Reynard fair do’s. These same fans have had every answer put in front of them along with an invite for a private meeting with Richard. Personally I think these fans are share holders and as such can understand their disappointment , however surly they did not expect to make money long term from a football clubs shares.

Nothing else can be done to convince these fans to join. You rightly point out the risk factors of two bids. The only one that seems sensible is the fans buy out as no one else will take care of the club better long term.What drives Richard on I don’t know at least he knows the majority are behind him.

A lot of the grievances seem to be about how Atkinsons plan works out going forward. Thats fair enough, like anything in life we have no crystal ball. It will simply be down to numbers and what folk percieve they are getting out of it, assuming they want anything at all. Some will some won't. I dont see how the risk then suddenly falls on any individual. If I join a golf club, I get my round of golf or use of the facilities or whatever but I'm not responsible for the finances if it goes tits up due to useless committee members or bad financial decisions. Probably not a great example, but who cares.

You then also have the people who have their noses out of joint because they might be a part of the block of 48% of shares. They possibly rightly feel that they have "invested" and then have wasted that money. Possibly they have. Thats share ownership for you. Its a risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here lies the crux of the problem. Rather than asking a specific question that can be answered we have ramblings, innuendos and agendas from individuals. Can a simple question not be asked that can provide a simple answer. If these posters have startling evidence to suggest that the CiC is conning the potential members then ask a question that can be answered by the CiC where they can be held accountable. Ramblings and innuendo is just tittle tattle and if anything assisting in helping the CiC cause.

Interpolated from a recent post.

  1. As 52% shareholder of the Club how can the CiC assist the Club in potential future financial shortfalls that it may encounter. (Please ignore that the fact that the CLUB is a completely different company and should be self-financed and not reliant on requiring its shareholders to pump additional funds into it )
  2. Who gets the profit from the bar during match day ?

Are we the fan really concerned that the CiC (not the Club) take empty space in the stadium, fit it out on their own (with some assistance from their members), then open it during match day for the benefit of its members where it could make a few hundred pounds profit for its own funds. Then allow the Club to use its facilities and keep the money.

To take that argument to the extreme what is to stop a “Craig Whyte type” open a matchday bar across from the stadium, fill it with saints fans then pocket the profit like every other bar in the town.

If these are the “smoking gun” questions that the fans at SMFC should be worried about then where is the CiC sign up form for me to sign up. There are other questions out there that should be asked and I am sure there are some plausible answers, some answers may be contractually sensitive.

Like

  1. Why does the Douglas Street Company not have all of the consortium members as Directors.
  2. Why does the Douglas Street Company have Laura Montgomery as a Director what role will she take in the Business
  3. Is there a proposal for Glasgow Womens Football to be based out of St Mirren Park.
  4. Should the CiC fail after the Consortium have had their payoff what is to stop them buying the control back for a fraction of what they received
  5. The business plan for the CiC appears to be based on certain member numbers being achieved. What is the absolute minimum member number to have a breakeven point in the CiC.

I thought this was posted up the other day? Wasn't it something like just over a thousand individuals coughing up their wedge plus 87 folk stumping up three grand? Surely if the numbers dont reach the break even point then it won't even get off the ground anyway? So why worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was posted up the other day? Wasn't it something like just over a thousand individuals coughing up their wedge plus 87 folk stumping up three grand? Surely if the numbers dont reach the break even point then it won't even get off the ground anyway? So why worry.

Were those numbers not aspirational numbers rather than absolute minimum.

I am not worried I am merely quering whether my money was there for the long haul should members drop by say x %

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Were those numbers not aspirational numbers rather than absolute minimum.

I am not worried I am merely quering whether my money was there for the long haul should members drop by say x %

No idea. It was apparently the numbers required to get the show on the road.

Yeah I see what you're saying now, but I dont know if there's an absolute minimum to make it tick over. Maybe its one of those things that if the numbers for tickover are low it might breed complacency or something? f**k knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

  1. As 52% shareholder of the Club how can the CiC assist the Club in potential future financial shortfalls that it may encounter. (Please ignore that the fact that the CLUB is a completely different company and should be self-financed and not reliant on requiring its shareholders to pump additional funds into it )
  2. Thats what it's shareholders have always done, along with the fans!
  3. Who gets the profit from the bar during match day ?

Are we the fan really concerned that the CiC (not the Club) take empty space in the stadium, fit it out on their own (with some assistance from their members), then open it during match day for the benefit of its members where it could make a few hundred pounds profit for its own funds. Then allow the Club to use its facilities and keep the money.

To take that argument to the extreme what is to stop a “Craig Whyte type” open a matchday bar across from the stadium, fill it with saints fans then pocket the profit like every other bar in the town.

Actually you shouldn't be surprised by the number of saints fans that presumed, or would assume matchday bar revenue within the stadium on a matchday would be something that benefits the club
!

If these are the “smoking gun” questions that the fans at SMFC should be worried about then where is the CiC sign up form for me to sign up. There are other questions out there that should be asked and I am sure there are some plausible answers, some answers may be contractually sensitive.

Like

  1. Why does the Douglas Street Company not have all of the consortium members as Directors.
  2. Why does the Douglas Street Company have Laura Montgomery as a Director what role will she take in the Business
  3. Is there a proposal for Glasgow Womens Football to be based out of St Mirren Park.
  4. Should the CiC fail after the Consortium have had their payoff what is to stop them buying the control back for a fraction of what they received
  5. The business plan for the CiC appears to be based on certain member numbers being achieved. What is the absolute minimum member number to have a breakeven point in the CiC.
  6. I like these questions as i'm sure others will be more than interested if you ever get any answers to them, especially re Douglas street, and Glasgow womens football moving in at SMFC. But hey they might be subject to confidentiality i.e. you only find out when the CiC is in???

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...