St. Sid Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 Oh Siddely the truth of this matter seems to be dragging you down, just as my like points continue to grow. The peeps aren't behind you on this, they want to know a definite on the implications of the Cic's debt pulling down the club. To help you ease your pain I've attached a wee quote from a geezer who dealt with things. "The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." W. Churchill (not the Oooh-Yeess one) What an odd post. Bizarre that somner9 always cries foul whenever his arguments run into trouble then by the flip of a coin makes pointless personal posts when that offer absolutely nothing to the debate. What somner9 has completely failed to do is actually develop the debate - yet again. Grasps a snippet of information...gets a chubby and completely overplays the hand. Within a few posts he renders what little impact that might have been made null and void - I still suspect he is actually a 10000 Hours supporter running defence for them. What he hasn't done is demonstrate a scenario where the SPL rules would apply. What we are seeing is the usual hysterical / neurotic response from somner9 to the smallest titbit of information. As I pointed out earlier, you would need to create a very, very convoluted set of circumstances in order to present a scenario where the SPL rules could be applied to our situation. somner9 has completely failed to present that and to date has only added a Wikipedia extract to the debate. What a f'k'n diddy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 The spl as you may have heard will hammer any newco. if the cic became insolvent any company taking over would be a newco. re the shareholding voting rights etc, they don't come into it once an organisation owns 51% or more. yes as 10000 hours have said they will grant the 48% One place on the board. but obviously that won't enable to vote for softer loo roll. The SPL have proposed that they will hammer any newco, they aren't voting on it until the end of the month so how can you ask for clarity on rules that aren't in existence. The football club will be run as a separate business, if 10000 hours was forced to sell the shares that would surely be a change of ownership not a newco to the SPL otherwise every time a club is sold or passed on to someone else that club would potentially be a newco and it would eventually effect every SPL club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 The SPL have proposed that they will hammer any newco, they aren't voting on it until the end of the month so how can you ask for clarity on rules that aren't in existence. The football club will be run as a separate business, if 10000 hours was forced to sell the shares that would surely be a change of ownership not a newco to the SPL otherwise every time a club is sold or passed on to someone else that club would potentially be a newco and it would eventually effect every SPL club. If the cic take control of the club, then at a later date become insolvent as they can't service the £2m debt mountain, some otherbody buying/transferring the cic's shares is by defintion a new company that wishes to take membership of the spl. The bit you might want to dwell on is the CiC is a company, and the proposal is that company (cic) take the majority shareholding in the company SMFC. As they have over 51% shares they take control and are treated as the parent company of SMFC. For reasons best know to St Sid's trickcyclist, he doesn't get that simple fact. even though he claims to have studied company law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 If the cic take control of the club, then at a later date become insolvent as they can't service the £2m debt mountain, some otherbody buying/transferring the cic's shares is by defintion a new company that wishes to take membership of the spl. The bit you might want to dwell on is the CiC is a company, and the proposal is that company (cic) take the majority shareholding in the company SMFC. As they have over 51% shares they take control and are treated as the parent company of SMFC. For reasons best know to St Sid's trickcyclist, he doesn't get that simple fact. even though he claims to have studied company law You can't argue that because the SPL rule does not exist until the SPL vote on it and define what the SPL mean by newco. Saint Mirren Football Club own the SPL share, if they remain a viable business with no debt and the CiC sell the shares in Saint Mirren that is not a new club joining the SPL, it is St Mirren Football Club Ltd coming under new ownership. If Rongers liquidate and come back as Govan United that is a new club to the SPL If the SPL try to define a newco as reaching as far as the parent company or owners then every time a club changes hands it would fall foul of your interpretation and I cannot see many chairmen agreeing to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 (edited) If the cic take control of the club, then at a later date become insolvent as they can't service the £2m debt mountain, some otherbody buying/transferring the cic's shares is by defintion a new company that wishes to take membership of the spl. The bit you might want to dwell on is the CiC is a company, and the proposal is that company (cic) take the majority shareholding in the company SMFC. As they have over 51% shares they take control and are treated as the parent company of SMFC. For reasons best know to St Sid's trickcyclist, he doesn't get that simple fact. even though he claims to have studied company law Again, you weaken your already bizarre position by putting up wrong information regarding the CIC proposals and the selling price. There is no £2M of debt. There never was even on day 1 of the original proposals. The CIC is a very specific type of company, not just a company. However, all that is irrelevant unless you can specify a scenario where the CIC goes into administration. You always fall down on the detail as eveything you post is "I won't support the CIC no matter what" gut feel neurosis. I have yet to see anyone produce a detailed scenario where the CIC falls into administration. All we have is speculative bollox, built upon speculative bollox. So let's see your detailed scenario of how a CIC set up to buy shares in a club will end up in administration. As far as I am aware there are only two social funders providing social funding loans. So let's hear about the sequence of events that would be required for the CIC / Co-op to be placed in administration. You can even do it from your position of anonymity on here. Edited May 19, 2012 by St. Sid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanmurray24 Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 And as REA has said on many occasions, these Social funders are not like banks. If CiC needs to.........repayments can be restructured to suit They are not in business to see things like this fail. Please Please Please one of these CiC/Co-Op Knockers please give us all an alternative rather than just spouting the usual this wont work...... What will then...........please come forth with your ideas for us all to find holes in your proposals. And Saint Mirren FC Ltd hold the SPL share not 10000hours Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted May 19, 2012 Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 Again, you weaken your already bizarre position by putting up wrong information regarding the CIC proposals and the selling price. There is no £2M of debt. There never was even on day 1 of the original proposals. The CIC is a very specific type of company, not just a company. However, all that is irrelevant unless you can specify a scenario where the CIC goes into administration. You always fall down on the detail as eveything you post is "I won't support the CIC no matter what" gut feel neurosis. I have yet to see anyone produce a detailed scenario where the CIC falls into administration. All we have is speculative bollox, built upon speculative bollox. So let's see your detailed scenario of how a CIC set up to buy shares in a club will end up in administration. As far as I am aware there are only two social funders providing social funding loans. So let's hear about the sequence of events that would be required for the CIC / Co-op to be placed in administration. You can even do it from your position of anonymity on here. There have also been a few examples of main creditors taking over the running of a business that owes them money instead of paying for the expense of going to court and putting a company into administration and administrator costs - just as Lloyds Bank put their man on the board of rongers when they started to get worried about their £18M. http://www.paisleydailyexpress.co.uk/renfrewshire-sport/renfrewshire-football/renfrewshire-football-st-mirren/2012/05/18/expert-plays-down-10000hours-fears-87085-30992309/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 There have also been a few examples of main creditors taking over the running of a business that owes them money instead of paying for the expense of going to court and putting a company into administration and administrator costs - just as Lloyds Bank put their man on the board of rongers when they started to get worried about their £18M. http://www.paisleyda...87085-30992309/ fuxake bud77....you pretty much gave away the end of the movie there. I was having great fun giving somner9 enough rope to make a right bawz of himself on this one and you just blew the punchline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 it defies belief that 10000 hours hadn't even considered the risk they intend to put our club under! Still with Smisa, and other people looking out for SMFC you can be sure they'll be held to account. Now why do you think it is that we are in the midst of yet another 10000 hours communcation black-out??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 it defies belief that 10000 hours hadn't even considered the risk they intend to put our club under! Still with Smisa, and other people looking out for SMFC you can be sure they'll be held to account. Now why do you think it is that we are in the midst of yet another 10000 hours communcation black-out??? Would that be "the risk" that you are unable to define? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 Would that be "the risk" that you are unable to define? Must have been the modules you missed when you studied company law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 20, 2012 Report Share Posted May 20, 2012 Must have been the modules you missed when you studied company law That'll be another no then - I hope your not SMiSAs legal advisor. Surely you can create at least one scenario where the SPL rules would be applied. Come on somner9, the more you fudge the challenge the more your argument dissipates. This was your big grandstanding moment and yet you've gone all shy on us. YOU CAN DO IT!!!!! 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.