Smisa In Cic Shocker

[Stuart Dickson]

They have repeatedly stated (so it must be true) that they "won't sell to anyone who doesn't6 have the best interests of St.Mirren at heart". Thereafter, whether it be CiC, or anyone else who buys from SG, they will probably sell to whoever they like, once they want to sell the club........which hopefully wopuldn't be for some time, regardless of owner, as this is tortuous sh*t.

52% is a slender majority. It only takes one consortium member to break from the group and the whole game turns on it's head. We'll wait and see how it plays out but I'd imagine if the 10000hours bid fails it will put a fair bit of strain on the strength of the consortium.

[Big Fras]

Not if there are no other bidders out there. We just bumble along quite happily, and last time I checked, that was SMFC's highest finish for 1/4 century, and we seem to be slightly better positioned than half the SPL when it comes to pounds, shillings, and pence.

I'll stick with the Quo

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Full page spread in todays PDE regarding the withdrawal of the backing of 10,000 hours.

Reading between the lines I can understand why as SMISA point out the new changes to SPL rules regarding being in debt by a parent company to the club in the wake of the Rangers saga.

If problems arise fears of a 10 point deduction could happen.

SMISA would also like to see a full detailed business plan for all it's members.

In fairness to Richard he has let SMISA see his plan though I am guessing not all documents at this time. Richard dose say in the article all fans pledging will be able to see a detailed business plan before any money is taken from fans.

You have to admire the prudence of SMISA here who have the best interests of it's members and the club at heart. If Richard comes up with the right documents in a detailed plan then I'm sure SMISA will back the take over like the rest of us will - well most of us ! !

[St. Sid]

Haven't seen the article as yet; however it did seem inevitable that the press would continue to ignore the programme articles and then the statement on here. I'm not convinced SMiSA's strategy is good for the chances of achieving fan ownership. In fact they may just have pished away the opportunity for the 1000+ fans that have signed up to try and achieve it - some of whom are members of SMiSA.

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I am now of the opinion that SMiSA should be allowed nowhere our BoD in terms of fan representation. They have decided to represent themselves rather than the 1000+ fans that have signed up to see how far 10000 Hours could take us.

[St. Sid]

Not quite the challenge to 10000 Hours that was expected - some of the info is wrong as well - mibbae somner9 is Andy Newport:

Saints fan group withdraws CIC backing:

May 16 2012 by Andy Newport, Paisley Daily Express

AN influential group of St Mirren supporters have withdrawn their backing for Richard Atkinson’s takeover bid . . . because they fear his move could see the Paisley club being docked SPL points.

The St Mirren Independent Supporters Association (SMiSA) had made a pledge last summer to hand Atkinson £50,000 to help his fan-backed bid for the Buddies.

However, the deal was subject to a list of conditions being met – including the opportunity to see a detailed business plan for Atkinson’s Community Interest Company 10000Hours.

And, although Atkinson has allowed SMiSA chiefs to examine his blueprints, he has told them they must not be shown to the group’s 70-strong membership until he completes his takeover deal.

Atkinson insists that releasing “commercially-sensitive information” too soon could jeopardise his deal to buy the controlling stake in Saints being sold by a consortium of directors which includes chairman Stewart Gilmour.

And, last night, he described the SMiSA development as a “hiccup”.

However, SMiSA has told Express Sports they won’t be handing over any money to 10000 Hours until they see all of the information.

A spokesperson said: “We can confirm that SMiSA is currently withdrawing support in principle from the 10000Hours proposal.

“SMiSA has been considering an approach from 10000Hours to provide 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 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.

“We would strongly encourage all St Mirren fans to fully investigate all aspects of the 10000Hours project prior to any commitment towards this.”

Last night, Willie Bell, who is secretary of SMiSA, revealed that their concerns centre on a list of Financial Fair Play rules which are set to be adopted by the SPL in the wake of the crisis which has hit Rangers this season.

He told Express Sports: “What we want to see is a detailed business plan so that we can carry out a proper analytical review of the proposals.

“There is debt involved in the CiC plan and it is prudent to understand what is involved in that.

“There are planned rule changes relating to the SPL that may result in penalties imposed on any parent company that becomes insolvent. That potentially causes us concern with regards to the CiC holding debt.

“Once we have a level of information that allows us to carry out that analytical review, we will reconsider our position.”

Atkinson’s plan involves using government grants, low-interest loans and supporter contributions to fund his takeover move before handing fans a say in how the Paisley club is run.

Any debt run up as a result of the loans – which would be taken out against 10000 Hours, rather than against St Mirren as a club – would have to be repaid within seven years.

However, on May 30, SPL bosses are set to vote on tough measures that will crack down on clubs owned by parent companies which sink under financial woes.

Last night, Atkinson said he would be happy to talk with any fan to discuss their concerns – and insisted that he won’t take a penny from supporters until they have been handed the full details of his plans.

He added: “We agree with SMiSA that we have not given permission to let their office bearers release the information they have to their general membership but this is purely because that information is currently commercially sensitive while we are trying to negotiate a purchase of the club under competitive conditions.

“All that information will be released to SMiSA members and the 1,000-plus members of 10000Hours before a penny is either taken from a member or paid to the selling consortium.

“Full transparency is what we are committed to as a CiC and full transparency is what, especially in the current circumstances that Scottish football finds itself in, will happen should our deal proceed to conclusion.

“As SMiSA ‘strongly encourages all St Mirren fans to fully investigate all aspects of the 10000Hours project,’ so I fully welcome anyone to talk to me, either in person or by telephone, to ask any and all questions they may have.”

Edited May 16, 2012 by St. Sid

[Grumpy Old Fan]

Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

It is St. Mirren we are talking about

[St. Sid]

It is St. Mirren we are talking about

Quite, its the elvis way....assume defeat to avoid disappointment.

[Guest somner9]

The time has come to talk!

Is it in anyway possible to talk about this without all the he said/she said or pro cic-v-anti cic mince. Talk just as st mirren fans about the risks involved with what 10000 hours proposes?

Smisa have highlighted an area of concern that all pledgers to 10000 hours and non pledgers should think long and hard about. When the little detail made available about 10000 hours proposal came out last year they were at great pains to point out the debts of the CiC were not debts of the club. And if for whatever reason the CiC went tits up then this would not affect the club, and we would be back to the current scenario of simply trying to find a new owner for the 52% shareholding.

Smisa have highlighted that this is not the case! Southampton FC were hit with an automatic points deduction and suffered relegation when they attempted to reason that when their parent company went into administration it did not affect the 'Child' i'e Southampton FC. Their league wouldn't have it and they were subsequently punished points docked and relegated. The CiC would become the clubs parent company.

Consider the proposed fair play rules that all the spl clubs are crapping themselves over which way to vote. If they are applied that would mean if the Cic hits the skids then as the parent company of SMFC (owning 52% shareholding) the club would be hit with those swingeing sanctions and could very well cease to exist.

lets face it we dont have the size of support, or revenue generating potential of rangers, and craig whyte could only keep them going for a few months on all that money when he exposed them to the same risk.

Who would stump up the millions need in that scenario to save the saints? would sky and espn insist we were admitted back in before signing a tv deal?

10000 hours proposal while laudable exposes SMFC to great risk. The cic will only be generating funds to pay its debts for at least two years, there is no contingency pot amassed to get over revenue dips. and if ST/matchday ticket sales drop we will have a revenue dip. How will it be bridged? probably only by slashing the playing/staff budget, selling players where/if possible.

And when thats done? without an additional/alternative revenue stream the cic would fold. The likes of Kibble and the other organisations keen to get into smp and make money will not be interested in chucking more cash at it, and our club will be staring into the abyss.

The alternatives?

Stop the 10000 hour proposal. align with smisa, set up a co-op, raise funds through memberships like the cic ones and amass a contingency fund, offer the selling consortium a 'pence in the pound deal' for their shares now, or a repayment of their value at the time of transfer further down the line when the contingency funds allow them to take their equity out of the club.

That means like the Well society we would have fan ownership without the debt mountain that could sink both cic and club, the club could continue to budget within its means, monies from the contingency could be invested in developing the bar/function facility if the returns look like they will justify the investment, meaning additional monies available for playing budget, and buying out further shares.

The other 48% shareholders could be offered a similar deal, if the 52% selling consortium dont want to go for it, offer it to the 48% then we would only need one of the consortium to cross over to gain majority control. all's fair in love and business.

I would ask all of us to consider this before we expose our club to a risk too far, once the decision is made if the cic fails the club will be punished and I think it would take a huge amount of optimism to see how it could be saved.

[Stuart Dickson]

The time has come to talk!

Is it in anyway possible to talk about this without all the he said/she said or pro cic-v-anti cic mince. Talk just as st mirren fans about the risks involved with what 10000 hours proposes?

Smisa have highlighted an area of concern that all pledgers to 10000 hours and non pledgers should think long and hard about. When the little detail made available about 10000 hours proposal came out last year they were at great pains to point out the debts of the CiC were not debts of the club. And if for whatever reason the CiC went tits up then this would not affect the club, and we would be back to the current scenario of simply trying to find a new owner for the 52% shareholding.

Smisa have highlighted that this is not the case! Southampton FC were hit with an automatic points deduction and suffered relegation when they attempted to reason that when their parent company went into administration it did not affect the 'Child' i'e Southampton FC. Their league wouldn't have it and they were subsequently punished points docked and relegated. The CiC would become the clubs parent company.

Consider the proposed fair play rules that all the spl clubs are crapping themselves over which way to vote. If they are applied that would mean if the Cic hits the skids then as the parent company of SMFC (owning 52% shareholding) the club would be hit with those swingeing sanctions and could very well cease to exist.

lets face it we dont have the size of support, or revenue generating potential of rangers, and craig whyte could only keep them going for a few months on all that money when he exposed them to the same risk.

Who would stump up the millions need in that scenario to save the saints? would sky and espn insist we were admitted back in before signing a tv deal?

10000 hours proposal while laudable exposes SMFC to great risk. The cic will only be generating funds to pay its debts for at least two years, there is no contingency pot amassed to get over revenue dips. and if ST/matchday ticket sales drop we will have a revenue dip. How will it be bridged? probably only by slashing the playing/staff budget, selling players where/if possible.

And when thats done? without an additional/alternative revenue stream the cic would fold. The likes of Kibble and the other organisations keen to get into smp and make money will not be interested in chucking more cash at it, and our club will be staring into the abyss.

The alternatives?

Stop the 10000 hour proposal. align with smisa, set up a co-op, raise funds through memberships like the cic ones and amass a contingency fund, offer the selling consortium a 'pence in the pound deal' for their shares now, or a repayment of their value at the time of transfer further down the line when the contingency funds allow them to take their equity out of the club.

That means like the Well society we would have fan ownership without the debt mountain that could sink both cic and club, the club could continue to budget within its means, monies from the contingency could be invested in developing the bar/function facility if the returns look like they will justify the investment, meaning additional monies available for playing budget, and buying out further shares.

The other 48% shareholders could be offered a similar deal, if the 52% selling consortium dont want to go for it, offer it to the 48% then we would only need one of the consortium to cross over to gain majority control. all's fair in love and business.

I would ask all of us to consider this before we expose our club to a risk too far, once the decision is made if the cic fails the club will be punished and I think it would take a huge amount of optimism to see how it could be saved.

Somner it's been dealt with over and over again. 10000hours membership will be made up of mostly St Mirren supporters. The risk you are worried about is that St Mirren supporters would deliberately put the club in jeopardy by cancelling their membership of the clubs parent company. Christ, I don't have a high opinion of St Mirren fans but even I don't think they are as dumb as that.

As for SMiSA, no offence to the guys running it but they've had over a decade to deliver this and to date they haven't even managed a seat on the board. I don't think they've got the ability, or the means to set up a Co-op even if piggybacking on the 10000hours proposal.

The plan you describe would lose me as a member - no great loss perhaps but I'd go. Why? Because there's no mention of community and no mention of how you generate funds outside of the club.

[St. Sid]

The time has come to talk!

Is it in anyway possible to talk about this without all the he said/she said or pro cic-v-anti cic mince. Talk just as st mirren fans about the risks involved with what 10000 hours proposes?

Smisa have highlighted an area of concern that all pledgers to 10000 hours and non pledgers should think long and hard about. When the little detail made available about 10000 hours proposal came out last year they were at great pains to point out the debts of the CiC were not debts of the club. And if for whatever reason the CiC went tits up then this would not affect the club, and we would be back to the current scenario of simply trying to find a new owner for the 52% shareholding.

Smisa have highlighted that this is not the case! Southampton FC were hit with an automatic points deduction and suffered relegation when they attempted to reason that when their parent company went into administration it did not affect the 'Child' i'e Southampton FC. Their league wouldn't have it and they were subsequently punished points docked and relegated. The CiC would become the clubs parent company.

Consider the proposed fair play rules that all the spl clubs are crapping themselves over which way to vote. If they are applied that would mean if the Cic hits the skids then as the parent company of SMFC (owning 52% shareholding) the club would be hit with those swingeing sanctions and could very well cease to exist.

lets face it we dont have the size of support, or revenue generating potential of rangers, and craig whyte could only keep them going for a few months on all that money when he exposed them to the same risk.

Who would stump up the millions need in that scenario to save the saints? would sky and espn insist we were admitted back in before signing a tv deal?

10000 hours proposal while laudable exposes SMFC to great risk. The cic will only be generating funds to pay its debts for at least two years, there is no contingency pot amassed to get over revenue dips. and if ST/matchday ticket sales drop we will have a revenue dip. How will it be bridged? probably only by slashing the playing/staff budget, selling players where/if possible.

And when thats done? without an additional/alternative revenue stream the cic would fold. The likes of Kibble and the other organisations keen to get into smp and make money will not be interested in chucking more cash at it, and our club will be staring into the abyss.

The alternatives?

Stop the 10000 hour proposal. align with smisa, set up a co-op, raise funds through memberships like the cic ones and amass a contingency fund, offer the selling consortium a 'pence in the pound deal' for their shares now, or a repayment of their value at the time of transfer further down the line when the contingency funds allow them to take their equity out of the club.

That means like the Well society we would have fan ownership without the debt mountain that could sink both cic and club, the club could continue to budget within its means, monies from the contingency could be invested in developing the bar/function facility if the returns look like they will justify the investment, meaning additional monies available for playing budget, and buying out further shares.

The other 48% shareholders could be offered a similar deal, if the 52% selling consortium dont want to go for it, offer it to the 48% then we would only need one of the consortium to cross over to gain majority control. all's fair in love and business.

I would ask all of us to consider this before we expose our club to a risk too far, once the decision is made if the cic fails the club will be punished and I think it would take a huge amount of optimism to see how it could be saved.

Why start a post with "Is it in anyway possible to talk about this without all the he said/she said or pro cic-v-anti cic mince."......and then proceed to post anti-CIC mince.

[Guest somner9]

Why start a post with "Is it in anyway possible to talk about this without all the he said/she said or pro cic-v-anti cic mince."......and then proceed to post anti-CIC mince.

So you'd bury your head in the sand knowing the implications for our club if the cic hits the skids? Nothing comes without risk, but imo this is a risk too far the debts of the cic could finish the club!

Everyone needs to consider that, even if the cic pledgers force 10000 to come up with 500k-£1m reserve before it kicks in.

it isn't anti-cic, its pro SMFC

[St. Sid]

So you'd bury your head in the sand knowing the implications for our club if the cic hits the skids? Nothing comes without risk, but imo this is a risk too far the debts of the cic could finish the club!

Everyone needs to consider that, even if the cic pledgers force 10000 to come up with 500k-£1m reserve before it kicks in.

it isn't anti-cic, its pro SMFC

somner9, like most people I didn't even bother reading your post. You have not engaged in the process and have even less information than SMiSA.

[Guest somner9]

somner9, like most people I didn't even bother reading your post. You have not engaged in the process and have even less information than SMiSA.

You're right on one point! no one's had any information on what contigencies 10000 hours has (If any) should the cic fail and the club is about to be wound up because of 10000 hours debt.

To be expected i suppose, another 'Head in the sand' merchant that will, like all the scumgers fans look to blame somebody else, anybody else if the cic's debt mountain pulls the club down. I guess the lure of richard's sausage roll is just too much for you. Step out the way and let the adults talk about it.

[St. Sid]

Step out the way and let the adults talk about it.

The adults did talk about it. They turned up at the last meeting and did their best to try and find a chink in the armour of 10000 Hours proposals. SMiSA almost had exclusivity in terms of questions put to Richard for around two hours. Richard answered every question. One of the SMiSA "due dilligence" team stated categorically that the numbers didn't add up - and of course it was a statement presented in the usual bombastic pretending to know what they are talking about style - not dissimilar to your own.....so I asked them to step up to the white board and demonstrate how the numbers didn't add up - guess what happened?

However, at least they were "adult" enough to actually turn up at the meeting and have a go. Although I don't believe their actions since then have been very "adult". You by comparison, won't tell us who you are. In fact, you shat yourself when you got an invite into the club to discuss your concerns. You turned on the guys that run the forum that provides you with the open opportunity to make your case / make an arse of yourself. You won't attend any open meetings, which would be a great opportunity for your to present your spurious case. You rejected my offer to review the constitution prior to it being released with a shitey excuse about it not being fair as you were against the 10000 Hours plans no matter what.

It is your "no matter what" position that means no one will take anything you post seriously. You have jumped from one potential "revelation" to the next. Everyone is bored with that. The numerous false does means it has no impact - not to mention the complete collapse of the much vaunted hero in waiting KMG. Even SMiSAs position has had zero impact other than getting people like you excited about yet another implied deal breaking revelation - yet again no detail is provided.

The SNP killed the CIC at phase 1. I actually think that scumgers financial shambles is the main threat to CIC / Co-op #2. It certainly isn't some anonymous diddy spouting vapid opine on an unofficial web site from a position of "against it no matter what".

I haven't even bothered signing up for the 10000 Hours forum. You can attack away at the CIC there unabated - however, you will need to go toe to toe with 10000 Hours and I am told that you have already bottled it there as well.

Good to know that you would like me to stop pointing and laughing at your anti-CIC posts though.

[northendsaint]

Can someone please tell me how much we would have in the fighting fund if we had been taking money from day 1?

[St. Sid]

Do you mean SMiSA or 10000 Hours?

If 1000 people had joined SMiSA back in the day it would have been £120K-a-year. I reckon they've been around for about 7-8 years. So somewhere around the £900,000.00 mark.

Based on an average of 80 members (guess) at a tenner a month....and the guess of 7-8 years SMiSA would have around £70K.

I think the 1st public 10,000 Hours meeting was around March last year; however the members has grown organically from 600 or so to 1000 over the year. I reckon there would have been about £120,000.00 in the CIC pot already.

[Guest somner9]

The adults did talk about it. They turned up at the last meeting and did their best to try and find a chink in the armour of 10000 Hours proposals. SMiSA almost had exclusivity in terms of questions put to Richard for around two hours. Richard answered every question. One of the SMiSA "due dilligence" team stated categorically that the numbers didn't add up - and of course it was a statement presented in the usual bombastic pretending to know what they are talking about style - not dissimilar to your own.....so I asked them to step up to the white board and demonstrate how the numbers didn't add up - guess what happened?

However, at least they were "adult" enough to actually turn up at the meeting and have a go. Although I don't believe their actions since then have been very "adult". You by comparison, won't tell us who you are. In fact, you shat yourself when you got an invite into the club to discuss your concerns. You turned on the guys that run the forum that provides you with the open opportunity to make your case / make an arse of yourself. You won't attend any open meetings, which would be a great opportunity for your to present your spurious case. You rejected my offer to review the constitution prior to it being released with a shitey excuse about it not being fair as you were against the 10000 Hours plans no matter what.

It is your "no matter what" position that means no one will take anything you post seriously. You have jumped from one potential "revelation" to the next. Everyone is bored with that. The numerous false does means it has no impact - not to mention the complete collapse of the much vaunted hero in waiting KMG. Even SMiSAs position has had zero impact other than getting people like you excited about yet another implied deal breaking revelation - yet again no detail is provided.

The SNP killed the CIC at phase 1. I actually think that scumgers financial shambles is the main threat to CIC / Co-op #2. It certainly isn't some anonymous diddy spouting vapid opine on an unofficial web site from a position of "against it no matter what".

I haven't even bothered signing up for the 10000 Hours forum. You can attack away at the CIC there unabated - however, you will need to go toe to toe with 10000 Hours and I am told that you have already bottled it there as well.

Good to know that you would like me to stop pointing and laughing at your anti-CIC posts though.

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!

It so doesn't bother you that Smisa have highlighted the BIG flaw in 10000 hours plans, that you had to type that snarling diatribe through the spittle on your monitor. The cic puts SMFC at risk, end of.

[Guest somner9]

Do you mean SMiSA or 10000 Hours?

If 1000 people had joined SMiSA back in the day it would have been £120K-a-year. I reckon they've been around for about 7-8 years. So somewhere around the £900,000.00 mark.

Based on an average of 80 members (guess) at a tenner a month....and the guess of 7-8 years SMiSA would have around £70K.

I think the 1st public 10,000 Hours meeting was around March last year; however the members has grown organically from 600 or so to 1000 over the year. I reckon there would have been about £120,000.00 in the CIC pot already.

To think there are still 1000 peeps willing to honour the direct debits they signed over a year ago when smisa have shown the massive risk SMFC will be exposed to if they (10000 hours) are wound up because of their debt, is at best wildly optimistic!

[St. Sid]

Me thinks the lady doth protest too much!

It so doesn't bother you that Smisa have highlighted the BIG flaw in 10000 hours plans, that you had to type that snarling diatribe through the spittle on your monitor. The cic puts SMFC at risk, end of.

Not at all....that was purely for my own fun. You are trying to hard to make something out of nothing....it makes good unofishal forum entertainment though.

[St. Sid]

To think there are still 1000 peeps willing to honour the direct debits they signed over a year ago when smisa have shown the massive risk SMFC will be exposed to if they (10000 hours) are wound up because of their debt, is at best wildly optimistic!

So where are all the cancellations.....you have been trying to convence people the CIC will be the end of the club and yet no exodus of support for it. You really struggle to deal with facts and seem to pin all your negativity on neurosis. How many direct debits have been cancelled?

[Gruffalo]

The SNP killed the CIC at phase 1.

You keep spouting this. I would like to see your evidence of this.

[Gruffalo]

To think there are still 1000 peeps willing to honour the direct debits they signed over a year ago when smisa have shown the massive risk SMFC will be exposed to if they (10000 hours) are wound up because of their debt, is at best wildly optimistic!

So lets get this clear. You are advocating that the consortium should only sell their shares to a series of individuals rather than a single body. Surely there is more risk of a sugar daddy going bust than an organisation that is financed and run by the fans.

[Guest somner9]

So lets get this clear. You are advocating that the consortium should only sell their shares to a series of individuals rather than a single body. Surely there is more risk of a sugar daddy going bust than an organisation that is financed and run by the fans.

No well wide of the mark, below is what I would suggest extract from post on page 2 of this thread;

'The alternatives?

Stop the 10000 hour proposal. align with smisa, set up a co-op, raise funds through memberships like the cic ones and amass a contingency fund, offer the selling consortium a 'pence in the pound deal' for their shares now, or a repayment of their value at the time of transfer further down the line when the contingency funds allow them to take their equity out of the club.

That means like the Well society we would have fan ownership without the debt mountain that could sink both cic and club, the club could continue to budget within its means, monies from the contingency could be invested in developing the bar/function facility if the returns look like they will justify the investment, meaning additional monies available for playing budget, and buying out further shares.

The other 48% shareholders could be offered a similar deal, if the 52% selling consortium dont want to go for it, offer it to the 48% then we would only need one of the consortium to cross over to gain majority control. all's fair in love and business.

I would ask all of us to consider this before we expose our club to a risk too far, once the decision is made if the cic fails the club will be punished and I think it would take a huge amount of optimism to see how it could be saved.'

[Gruffalo]

Somner

Great plan. But where do you get £2m to buy the shares

[Gruffalo]

No well wide of the mark, below is what I would suggest extract from post on page 2 of this thread;

'The alternatives?

Stop the 10000 hour proposal. align with smisa, set up a co-op, raise funds through memberships like the cic ones and amass a contingency fund, offer the selling consortium a 'pence in the pound deal' for their shares now, or a repayment of their value at the time of transfer further down the line when the contingency funds allow them to take their equity out of the club.

That means like the Well society we would have fan ownership without the debt mountain that could sink both cic and club, the club could continue to budget within its means, monies from the contingency could be invested in developing the bar/function facility if the returns look like they will justify the investment, meaning additional monies available for playing budget, and buying out further shares.

The other 48% shareholders could be offered a similar deal, if the 52% selling consortium dont want to go for it, offer it to the 48% then we would only need one of the consortium to cross over to gain majority control. all's fair in love and business.

I would ask all of us to consider this before we expose our club to a risk too far, once the decision is made if the cic fails the club will be punished and I think it would take a huge amount of optimism to see how it could be saved.'

Lets see we have 1000 people signed up to the CiC at £10 per month.

So we propose to say to the consortium we know you want £2m but we are offering a unique CVA opportunity and will actually give you £0.06p in the pound for your shares. It’s a one off deal take it or you can keep your shares.

OR

Are we offering to take control of the club and tell them that we will pay them off in 16 years 8 months time on the proviso that the £2m is not index linked.

Back to the drawing board with that one

Where do you get £2m