Tennant's Lager Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 From SMiSA.net... We can confirm that SMiSA is currently withdrawing support in principle from the 10000 Hours proposal. SMiSA has been considering an approach from 10000 Hours to provide from its accumulated members subscriptions a substantial up front contribution towards the funding of the share purchase but key information relating to the purchase has not been supplied to allow us to carry out a thorough review of the proposition and this, coupled with the failure of 10000 Hours to engage with SMiSA following a request for information in December 2011, has resulted in us seeking direction from our members on this issue. Should sufficient detailed information be made available to us at a future date we will consider this accordingly.SMiSA fully and actively supports fan ownership of football clubs and takes responsibility for doing everything it can to ensure the future financial stability of SMFC under any new majority shareholder. We would strongly encourage all St.Mirren fans to fully investigate all aspects of the 10000 Hours project prior to any commitment towards this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TPAFKATS Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 I predict some pish from sid along the lines of cheating the club out of money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RossTheBoss Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Hope Div's new servers are up for challenge 'cause this place is gonna go into meltdown tonight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 SMiSA's money....if 10000 Hours have blanked them after the last meeting they deserve all they get. I've already bunged it onto the Club for Sale BoD so it gets maximum visibility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyg Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 We would strongly encourage all St.Mirren fans to fully investigate all aspects of the 10000 Hours project prior to any commitment towards this. It's turning into a circus now and I'm not surprised at this development. Back to the drawing board soon for the consortium? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Yup, it looks like our future is heading back into the realms of anybody's guess. Shame as we may be waving a good opportunity for our future goodbye. But as you say, not a big surprise going on the timeframes alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapsalmon Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Are direct debit mandates not only valid for 6 months as well if they're not used? So as well as smisa pulling out 100000000000000hours will have to get them resubmitted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapsalmon Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Feel free to move that last post to the thread in st mirren for sale. Probably in the wrong place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapsalmon Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 It is an interesting question and one that was asked of REA at the last meeting. An DD instruction made to a bank that has not been used to collect funds for over 13 months is automatically cancelled - however I'd assume that none of these mandate forms have been submitted to a bank. Don't know how valid these forms would be if presented to a bank now - so I'd expect they would have to be reissued before accepted by a bank. Did he say if they were still valid or not? It's got to a point now where it appears that its not going to work. Seems to be one thing after another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorizaar Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 For clarity, how much is 'substantial' and how many members do SMISA have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slapsalmon Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 He did not know the answer at the time, but said he would investigate this. Not heard anything since. Cheers buddie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) For clarity, how much is 'substantial' and how many members do SMISA have? Dunno the latest figures but they did have at least 80 members at some point. I think theri role was more important for the first crack at getting the funding to sell supporter buy in. That has likely waned as 10000 Hours has a significant chunk of overall supporter backing now. Perhaps SMiSA could clarify if any further meetings have taking place with 10000 Hours since the sign up meeting as my impression was that was going to happen. Edited May 11, 2012 by St. Sid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 information on finances not being given, smisa being ignored, they have done the right thing and backed off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lex Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 As someone who was considering investing in the CIC, this is an intriguing development. I certainly won't be committing to anything before the situation is far clearer than it is now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civilsaint Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Self preservation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted May 11, 2012 Report Share Posted May 11, 2012 Self preservation? Possibly but what is the point. SMiSA have never been more than a very small minority voice amongst the support, and they've never had any real meaningful input into the running of the club. If the objective really is Supporter ownership why attempt to block it just to maintain their role in the club? Indeed you would think that those leading SMiSA currently would be amongst the ones most likely to be appointed to the various roles in the CIC by fellow supporters. It is an intriguing development especially since it could leave the club in vulnerable position although it would be nice if they would at least come out and say what their reservations are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside saint Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 Stuart, the reservations are outlined clearly in the OP. Despite repeated requests for info to allow us to make an informed decision on investing 50k, we've been largely ignored. It's not a Smisa ego trip, the 50k is straight from members pockets over the past ten years and fundraising. Asking for clarity is not unreasonable and the refusal to provide it stinks IMHO. Just my view, i'm not the spokesman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 I predict some pish from sid along the lines of cheating the club out of money... And not forgetting the SNP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 Stuart, the reservations are outlined clearly in the OP. Despite repeated requests for info to allow us to make an informed decision on investing 50k, we've been largely ignored. It's not a Smisa ego trip, the 50k is straight from members pockets over the past ten years and fundraising. Asking for clarity is not unreasonable and the refusal to provide it stinks IMHO. Just my view, i'm not the spokesman. Communication is a two way thing. I can't defend 10000hours frustrating SMiSA by not being clear in their responses - but similarly TL's post doesn't give much clarity to potential members of 10000hours. What exactly is the issue they wanted clarity on? What is the area that they have found questionable? And what part of the project should potential members be fully investigating - that they haven't been fully investigating already? I found an issue with the Community Membership side of the project right back at the start and I posted openly and honestly about it on the website - and REA responded to say it was fair criticism. My issue was that I was going to the committee at a grass roots football club and asking them to put £500 into a project that was buying St Mirren, and when I was being asked what the club would get in return there was simply nothing tangible that could be offered without the club having been bought and the MoU being put to a member vote. I made loads of suggestions and requests to REA but nothing could be pinned down. It was a catch 22 situation and our club simply couldn't commit (quite rightly too). Is it a similar issue that is frustrating SMiSA or have they found something more sinister? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 Communication is a two way thing. I can't defend 10000hours frustrating SMiSA by not being clear in their responses - but similarly TL's post doesn't give much clarity to potential members of 10000hours. What exactly is the issue they wanted clarity on? What is the area that they have found questionable? And what part of the project should potential members be fully investigating - that they haven't been fully investigating already? I found an issue with the Community Membership side of the project right back at the start and I posted openly and honestly about it on the website - and REA responded to say it was fair criticism. My issue was that I was going to the committee at a grass roots football club and asking them to put £500 into a project that was buying St Mirren, and when I was being asked what the club would get in return there was simply nothing tangible that could be offered without the club having been bought and the MoU being put to a member vote. I made loads of suggestions and requests to REA but nothing could be pinned down. It was a catch 22 situation and our club simply couldn't commit (quite rightly too). Is it a similar issue that is frustrating SMiSA or have they found something more sinister? What Smisa found is what is available to anyone. 10000 hours do not have any contigencies should there projection drop below target. Which in this economic environment is always likely. In short they dont know what they will do if something changes. Add to that a lot of the funding is now coming from organisations whose sole objective is to make money out of SMP whilst returning nothing to the club. this is not about the profit on a matchday pint, but about substantial facilities at SMP that these organisations will dominate and reap substantial reward from. The BoD should hang their heads in shame for trying to leave a legacy where even the proposer doesn't know what he's doing. It's all turned a bit Craig 'Whyte' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 What Smisa found is what is available to anyone. 10000 hours do not have any contigencies should there projection drop below target. Which in this economic environment is always likely. In short they dont know what they will do if something changes. Add to that a lot of the funding is now coming from organisations whose sole objective is to make money out of SMP whilst returning nothing to the club. this is not about the profit on a matchday pint, but about substantial facilities at SMP that these organisations will dominate and reap substantial reward from. The BoD should hang their heads in shame for trying to leave a legacy where even the proposer doesn't know what he's doing. It's all turned a bit Craig 'Whyte' Once again you post stuff that people who have attended meetings with 10000 Hours and even the early SMiSA meetings know not to be true. So much more could be made of SMiSA's decision, but you will wreck any impact by posting stuff that only embarrasses yourself. The SMiSA position is pretty much where we all are. They cannot move forward without more information. However, 10000 Hours aren't asking anyone to move forward at this point. That is not the stage in the process that we are at. SMiSA are absolutely correct in stating that everyone should make themselves aware of all of the details before finalising their arrangement with 10000 Hours. I can't see anyone having a different view from that. They are also right to raise concerns about how the new deal is being financed. The dependency on fans financial support ahs increased despite £1M being sourced from social funders. The requirement from fans has increased significantly. However, the charge on 10000 Hours before related to mistrust of the funders / debt. Are we now saying that we don't trust ourselves. Much of the fans financing appears to be coming from up front 87 club membership. That will not be subject to cancellation. I reckon that will be around £250,000.00. The key question then in can the 1000 or so supporters be trusted to keep up their payments to keep the club under fan ownership. That's 1000 supporters who signed up despite not seeing an immediate threat to the club from the banks as we managed to deal with the debt. The risk therefore is that a significant number of the initial members will suddenly disappear and not be replaced by additional members. I think that would be an unlikely scenario. I don't see any risk to the club there. I do think a better question is not around risk to the club, as that's just not there....but more around when the club starts seeing financial benefits from the CIC. However, even that in itself strikes me as an odd criticism of the CIC. SMFC is a separate entity and will continue to function the same way as it does today, with the obvious difference that we would have more of a say in the running of it. I do however believe that under the new model it will take longer for the CIC to present significant additional revenue streams into the club. That is certainly not a deal breaker. What we are not seeing is the promised silver bullet that kills off the basic premise of the CIC. And that is do fans want to have ownership in the club. SMiSA were looking to invest £50K in shares to try and get a fans rep on the BoD. The opportunity they have before them is for fans to take a 52% shareholding in the club. £50K for a fans rep that has never materialised, versus £50K for fan ownership of the club. Seems like a stonewall no brainer to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 Well some would say you've got no brains - but it's a no brainer for me too. I used to be a member of SMiSA, along with 5 other ISA's. I lost interest in SMiSA when they lost sight of their goal of putting a fan on the board, and instead decided to help the club by buying them t-shirts and towels. Obviously since I cancelled my membership someone has managed to get them back on track and they've got a decent shareholding and some significant cash reserves, and you have to say they've done an impressive job in the end considering their extremely limited numbers - but sight of the goal appears to be getting lost again as here is an opportunity to have the club run by fans and they won't back it. Like you've said it's their money. They certainly should never have been ignored and if they've taken the huff over that then I'd be the last person to complain. Any time I am a customer I expect to have the sales staffs full attention, even if it is only for the period where they give me their pitch and take my money and if I didn't feel I was getting the attention I deserved I might not conclude the deal - but even if I did I certainly wouldn't be back. However my frustration comes when fans can't see that there is certainly scope for an immediate financial benefit for the football club even if it doesn't come in the form of the subscriptions being paid directly into the club. There are so many ways in which having a football club work with the community could either save money, or earn income. At the worst case scenario proper co-ordination would at the very least ensure volume discounts on kit and equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reborn saint Posted May 12, 2012 Report Share Posted May 12, 2012 I think SMiSA going cold on the deal is a reflection of what most original CIC supporters think. It is a great idea to have the club in the hands of the fans but this process is in a shambolic state. REA has been at St Mirren park for more than 2 years!.....His heart is in the right place but he has failed not just once but now 3 times to communicate with the potential customers!...He has apologised for this twice saying it was his mistake and i expect a 3rd one coming. The reality is as I have posted before is he dosn't have the ability to see this through....we must move on and hope SG keeps the club in safe hands until someone with the ability to involve the fans comes along with a price of VERY much less than £2M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 could the answer be that SMISA has now matured and and has developed it's own identity and it could possibly be vehicle for fan ownership? If SMISA can generate a wad of 50k with so few members then is it possible for the 10000 hours DD subscribers to sign up for a similar amount to SMISA, who then strike a deal to buy over the consortium (and anybody else's, if they want to) shareholding in installments? Just a thought, but the gradual acquisition of shares seems a better method as any failure to keep delivering for the club would see a pause in contributions coming in. Somner raises, and exagerates, some good points about some of the community groups. i'd like to see them come in, influnence, contribute to and share in the development of the club, but not be able to control it or use it as a cash generator for their own ends. Perhaps the uncertainty can be overcome by a model that provides some protection against some of his fears. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 13, 2012 Report Share Posted May 13, 2012 could the answer be that SMISA has now matured and and has developed it's own identity and it could possibly be vehicle for fan ownership? If SMISA can generate a wad of 50k with so few members then is it possible for the 10000 hours DD subscribers to sign up for a similar amount to SMISA, who then strike a deal to buy over the consortium (and anybody else's, if they want to) shareholding in installments? Just a thought, but the gradual acquisition of shares seems a better method as any failure to keep delivering for the club would see a pause in contributions coming in. Somner raises, and exagerates, some good points about some of the community groups. i'd like to see them come in, influnence, contribute to and share in the development of the club, but not be able to control it or use it as a cash generator for their own ends. Perhaps the uncertainty can be overcome by a model that provides some protection against some of his fears. SMiSA have been around for a few years. I actually quite like what they have done. The raising of cash to buy shares hasn't really had the desired impact in terms of fan representation on the BoD; however they have done some great stuff in terms of engaging with the club such as the Open Day when Danny joined and of course Saints Aid, which is sadly no more. I dunno if the club taking that in house has fuelled the rift or whether that was agreed by both parties. Attaching somner9 to anything is pretty dumb after he blew his credability by refusing to engage with the club. However, SMiSA appear to be very reticent to engage on the Internet - in fact they slated the online debate in one of their programme articles. Although I think they made a couple of good points in the context of that - one being the anonymity of the posters attacking the CIC / co-op. SMiSA taking over the fan ownership process is interesting in that they only have £50K. However if they could access the £1M of social funding that could be the way to go. However, I don't see what difference that would make in terms of the risk to SMFC. Would you have a third party owning 52% of the shares...what happens if the fans drop off....where is the change in risk? There isn't any is there? I reckon that SMiSA's £50K would disappear very quickly just putting together the deal for club and the process for the sale of the share and the legal bollox with the social funders. The 10000 Hours chaps have already taken the hit for that. Perhaps SMiSA have a business plan up their sleeve for fan ownership. I am sure we would all be interested in an alternative to the CIC / Co-op that doesn't involved rangers. A SMiSA led bid would be a welcome alternative to some dodgy Liverpool characters. I would be surprised if SMiSA are even thinking that way. I do however think that shoulod the CIC / Co-op begin to finally gather pace and actually progress to the next step we will see some of the St Mirren "groups" start to vie for power within the club. I reckon the 87 Club commercial bawbag types will look to have some representation othe BoD, and I would be surprised if SMiSA didn't have similar designs on a default BoD place. At the moment I haven't seen anything that actually states categorically how SMFC BoD will be put together. For me that is quite a big question. Whilst I would hope the members of the SMFC BoD are subject to skill tests. I would expect fans ownership of the 52% shareholding to mean that the CIC members would be deciding who populates the SMFC BoD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.