Guest somner9 Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Somner Great plan. But where do you get £2m to buy the shares Why would anyone other than the bonkers cic/10000 hours thing pay them £2m??? No one else has offered that, therfor it aint worth it. Plus to secure the future of the club, and put it into fan ownership is a mighty powerful tool that is hard for ALL the shareholders to ignore. Imagine of you will approaching the other 48% and suggesting they could swap their currently worthless shares for equity in a fans co-op. then you would only need to acquire one tranch of shares from the consortium for about £20-£30k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Why would anyone other than the bonkers cic/10000 hours thing pay them £2m??? No one else has offered that, therfor it aint worth it. Plus to secure the future of the club, and put it into fan ownership is a mighty powerful tool that is hard for ALL the shareholders to ignore. Imagine of you will approaching the other 48% and suggesting they could swap their currently worthless shares for equity in a fans co-op. then you would only need to acquire one tranch of shares from the consortium for about £20-£30k? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Why would anyone other than the bonkers cic/10000 hours thing pay them £2m??? No one else has offered that, therfor it aint worth it. Plus to secure the future of the club, and put it into fan ownership is a mighty powerful tool that is hard for ALL the shareholders to ignore. Imagine of you will approaching the other 48% and suggesting they could swap their currently worthless shares for equity in a fans co-op. then you would only need to acquire one tranch of shares from the consortium for about £20-£30k? Let me get this straight your plan here is for all of the other individual shareholders to form a rival consortium and try and entice one of the original consortiums to defect. We then transfer the majority shareholdings into a newco (fans club) and invite fans to give us money to run our own business. What do these fans get for their investment, what happens to their money, will there be a bar, will a religious organisation be allowed to use the facilities, will the playing budget be increased, will we get voting rights. It sounds like you are trying to form a rival CiC with a rival consortium. A cunning plan Baldrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Let me get this straight your plan here is for all of the other individual shareholders to form a rival consortium and try and entice one of the original consortiums to defect. We then transfer the majority shareholdings into a newco (fans club) and invite fans to give us money to run our own business. What do these fans get for their investment, what happens to their money, will there be a bar, will a religious organisation be allowed to use the facilities, will the playing budget be increased, will we get voting rights. It sounds like you are trying to form a rival CiC with a rival consortium. A cunning plan Baldrick A rival co-op (one member, one vote, one board?) and for £20k instead of £2,000,000.00 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 A rival co-op (one member, one vote, one board?) and for £20k instead of £2,000,000.00 This sounds great. I have just run it past SG and he says crack on. We have the Hospitality Suite available on Thursday next week for you to present your business plan at a public meeting. We are all very excited about the opportunity to ask you a few questions in person about your plans and how they compare to 10000 Hours proposal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 This sounds great. I have just run it past SG and he says crack on. We have the Hospitality Suite available on Thursday next week for you to present your business plan at a public meeting. We are all very excited about the opportunity to ask you a few questions in person about your plans and how they compare to 10000 Hours proposal. So you are ReA after all! Mystery solved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 So you are ReA after all! Mystery solved 7.30pm okay for you.....you can get in earlier to set up your projector, presentation hand outs, etc if you like......or is it just going to be the same old pointless blah, blah fired out your well buckled bumbagina. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Let's say that we create a rival Co-op, it would still be an owning company and still in danger of going in to administration. SIMSA, are a separate company and logic would dictate that they too would be in danger of going in to administration. The debate is time wasting, at best, and destructive at worst. If anyone is claiming that they didn't realise the dangers, when Southampton and Portsmouth had suffered the same, then it's they who are guilty of not doing even the bare minimum of research (reading BBC news). I never really saw anything from SMISA about a grand plan, outwith little bullet points of information, around their push for a seat. "Fans should be on the board" is about as well planned and thought out as "own the club, pick the team". They've obviously thrown a tissy over not being able to just pass commercially sensitive information around willy nilly and, to be honest, if that's their behaviour now then I wouldn't trust any one of them who've been involved in those discussions. The fact that it all points to an utter lack of trust towards the Saint Mirren supporters also sticks in the back of my throat just a little bit. Surely, it was best holding off on this until the numbers were met and we had the all revealing meeting prior to the final sign-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Let's say that we create a rival Co-op, it would still be an owning company and still in danger of going in to administration. SIMSA, are a separate company and logic would dictate that they too would be in danger of going in to administration. The debate is time wasting, at best, and destructive at worst. If anyone is claiming that they didn't realise the dangers, when Southampton and Portsmouth had suffered the same, then it's they who are guilty of not doing even the bare minimum of research (reading BBC news). I never really saw anything from SMISA about a grand plan, outwith little bullet points of information, around their push for a seat. "Fans should be on the board" is about as well planned and thought out as "own the club, pick the team". They've obviously thrown a tissy over not being able to just pass commercially sensitive information around willy nilly and, to be honest, if that's their behaviour now then I wouldn't trust any one of them who've been involved in those discussions. The fact that it all points to an utter lack of trust towards the Saint Mirren supporters also sticks in the back of my throat just a little bit. Surely, it was best holding off on this until the numbers were met and we had the all revealing meeting prior to the final sign-up. Good points but the difference being if we set up a rival co-op, persuaded the sellers or the other 48% to join and exchange their shares for equity we would only have to pay say around £20k to get the required shares from one of the selling consortium. The membership fees collected would like the Well Society go into a reserve/contigency fund to ensure we can manouvere the certain financial bumps in the road normal revenue can't deal with. At present if the cic takes over it has £2million debt mountain to service, starts with no revenue streams (said bar profits are going to kibble the operator) so when the revenue gaps come up they've got hee-haw contingency to deal with them. save going to the members to ask for another £100-£200k! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Good points but the difference being if we set up a rival co-op, persuaded the sellers or the other 48% to join and exchange their shares for equity we would only have to pay say around £20k to get the required shares from one of the selling consortium. The membership fees collected would like the Well Society go into a reserve/contigency fund to ensure we can manouvere the certain financial bumps in the road normal revenue can't deal with. At present if the cic takes over it has £2million debt mountain to service, starts with no revenue streams (said bar profits are going to kibble the operator) so when the revenue gaps come up they've got hee-haw contingency to deal with them. save going to the members to ask for another £100-£200k! On the basis that SMISA have circa £60k why have they not started a campaign to initiate this idea. Smisa could as you say break the consortium with their £20k carrot offered to the Consortium Judas then have another £40k to put in the pot with the other fans money. So simple I am shocked its not been suggested already. Question is who will be the consortium Judas ? How many people own the other 48% of the shares. Will all 48% sign a legal agreement to transfer their shares. Who pays for these legal costs. What is to stop an individual owner with 3% of the shares to demand £100k to hand them over. Thus throwing your whole idea down the swanie. You are dealing with far too many people. You will never get a consensus from the remaining 48%. Some of the shares will be lost, some past down to non St Mirren fans. Some will be against your idea. Never going to happen Edited May 18, 2012 by Gruffalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) double post Edited May 18, 2012 by Gruffalo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 On the basis that SMISA have circa £60k why have they not started a campaign to initiate this idea. Smisa could as you say break the consortium with their £20k carrot offered to the Consortium Judas then have another £40k to put in the pot with the other fans money. So simple I am shocked its not been suggested already. Question is who will be the consortium Judas ? How many people own the other 48% of the shares. Will all 48% sign a legal agreement to transfer their shares. Who pays for these legal costs. What is to stop an individual owner with 3% of the shares to demand £100k to hand them over. Thus throwing your whole idea down the swanie. You are dealing with far too many people. You will never get a consensus from the remaining 48%. Some of the shares will be lost, some past down to non St Mirren fans. Some will be against your idea. Never going to happen a large majority of the 48% shares are held by a few individuals, The others it would be more straightforward than 10000 hours getting 1000 pledgers, as they would now have a real say (one memebr one vote, one board) in the club. Bbut as all is fair in love and business the prospect of ending up with worthless shares would I'm sure inspire more than one of the consortium to think again how best to leave a legacy for the club's future. costs such as they are would be met out of the membership fees, be assured it would all cost less than £100k, not £2million, and there would be no debt hanging over the club as in the cic's debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Are we on for Thursday somner9? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) You considering your position? http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQs8hDh1NEM4xSZ9YoU_uqNoqd48IBhFHpp2qCAc4vQtDSBZpBS Edited May 18, 2012 by somner9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gruffalo Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 a large majority of the 48% shares are held by a few individuals, The others it would be more straightforward than 10000 hours getting 1000 pledgers, as they would now have a real say (one memebr one vote, one board) in the club. Bbut as all is fair in love and business the prospect of ending up with worthless shares would I'm sure inspire more than one of the consortium to think again how best to leave a legacy for the club's future. costs such as they are would be met out of the membership fees, be assured it would all cost less than £100k, not £2million, and there would be no debt hanging over the club as in the cic's debt. Shareholders war with Machiavellian tactics used at every turn. What’s to stop the 52% shareholders getting wind of you proposed mutiny and go and align themselves with another large shareholder to create a 65% consortium. Your proposal is nothing other than fantasy. Who would be the Chairman of that consortium Mr Walter Mitty. I am not happy at the consortium getting their £2m but to believe that they could be broken for £20k is ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Shareholders war with Machiavellian tactics used at every turn. What’s to stop the 52% shareholders getting wind of you proposed mutiny and go and align themselves with another large shareholder to create a 65% consortium. Your proposal is nothing other than fantasy. Who would be the Chairman of that consortium Mr Walter Mitty. I am not happy at the consortium getting their £2m but to believe that they could be broken for £20k is ridiculous. It's not about being broken, it's about the best way forward for the club. the sellers put one vision forward and from what we can gather that made machiavevilian tactics look like play school. Why should that be the only way forward, that five people get a handsome return, but others with the same or more invested are left with meaningless pices of paper? There is another way KTF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 It's not about being broken, it's about the best way forward for the club. the sellers put one vision forward and from what we can gather that made machiavevilian tactics look like play school. Why should that be the only way forward, that five people get a handsome return, but others with the same or more invested are left with meaningless pices of paper? There is another way KTF The only machiavellian (fixed it for yees) tactics that have been demonstrated so far was KMG taking a scumgers secretary into our boardroom and showing them commercially sensitive documents. Although dafties like you have had a good go at Machiavellian tactics and failed miserably. You appear to be taking 10000 Hours idea and trying to represent them as your own. The biggest issue is what happens when 10000 Hours are no longer there and there are no new ideas to pilfer. I really think it is time you stood up in front of a public meeting and made your case for your alrenatives to the CIC. REA has done this many times now, both public meetings and to SMiSA meetings as well as presenting his proposals to many social funders to raise 7-figure funding. Even SMiSA is their programme article slated the clowns that have been criticising the CIC from an anonymous platform. So why not finally stand up and present your case in front of your fellow supporters? I reckon we could sell tickets at a tenner a time to get you cash reserve started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) The only machiavellian (fixed it for yees) tactics that have been demonstrated so far was KMG taking a scumgers secretary into our boardroom and showing them commercially sensitive documents. Although dafties like you have had a good go at Machiavellian tactics and failed miserably. You appear to be taking 10000 Hours idea and trying to represent them as your own. The biggest issue is what happens when 10000 Hours are no longer there and there are no new ideas to pilfer. I really think it is time you stood up in front of a public meeting and made your case for your alrenatives to the CIC. REA has done this many times now, both public meetings and to SMiSA meetings as well as presenting his proposals to many social funders to raise 7-figure funding. Even SMiSA is their programme article slated the clowns that have been criticising the CIC from an anonymous platform. So why not finally stand up and present your case in front of your fellow supporters? I reckon we could sell tickets at a tenner a time to get you cash reserve started. Oh siddely back on the name calling so readily. Re photo below keep your chin up! http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=head+in+the+sand+image&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=nIS&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&biw=1138&bih=498&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=MmlzWOmRTZbkNM:&imgrefurl=http://orwellshanky.wordpress.com/2012/04/07/putting-your-head-in-the-sand-does-indeed-make-you-blind-matthew-hutson-and-magical-thinking/&docid=D1hxWDR3ezUwQM&imgurl=http://orwellshanky.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/headinsandstatue.jpeg&w=800&h=600&ei=_oi2T5mGOMi80QWwuojaBw&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=414&sig=118329399551228796962&page=1&tbnh=144&tbnw=192&start=0&ndsp=12&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0,i:93&tx=66&ty=73 Edited May 18, 2012 by somner9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted May 18, 2012 Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) On the issue of a fighting fund, I'd have assumed thatd have happened anyway as interested members could add to the budget. Filling budget gaps is different, but again ANY group taking control would need to understand and deal with that. Fan ownership isn't a walk in the park, very few Saints fans have any experience of it and it'll be a steep learning curve. The CIC model does offer more avenues to engagement of other groups and financial streams, to me that trumps who thought of it first or who Richard supports. Edited May 18, 2012 by TsuMirren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted May 18, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 18, 2012 Oh siddely back on the name calling so readily. Re photo below keep your chin up! http://www.google.co...:93&tx=66&ty=73 Still a no to a public debate then somner9. Is that because you still haven't manage to find that elusive silver bullet to bring down the milky bar kid version of the big bag wolf. Instead you'll continue to jump on ever little titbit of gossip that suits your agenda. Take a wee bit of time to form a few bullet points for this eureka moment you are having on an alternative co-op. Fire it into a wee ppt presentation and bring it with you to SMP for the fans to hear. Seriously Bud - tenner a ticket with all the donations going to youth football - it'll be a sell out. 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.