The Day Fan Ownership Died!

[civilsaint]

Well done to GLS and REA for managing to progress this project to it's current position. Just ignore the lunatics and all their childish hysterics.

Somner doesn't even understand the concept and has shown no desire over the last 12 months to want to understand the facts.

Sid, well he just loves the attention.

[Guest somner9]

Yup, the disabled fans are still getting screwed over, despite fans being against that. It seems that it could be one way traffic as we are only getting traditional board members - only we are paying for them to be in place.

I had mentioned it once or twice.

but what a f**king opportunity with GLS, lets be clear pulling off a great deal to get some equity back for his shares in the long run, imagine what we could do if others did the same???

[Drew]

Will the club be dropping the embarrassing charges to disabled fans carers?

Perhaps, come November, you can lobby for a vote on this courtesy of your CIC membership.

[Guest somner9]

Nonsense

I have been intereted in the idea of the CiC, albeit with concerns, from day one and have read as much as the next person, attended meetings and shared dialogue with others on the matter.

At no point was I confused as to whether I was entitled to a vote on CiC issues as opposed to a "direct" vote in all things SMFC. Where I believe the influence will be is with the power of the 52% block vote on the SMFC Board. If it's one member on vote within the CiC then the 52% influence will be determined by the majority.

Again I 'm not talking about or referring to you, or your position. is that clear?

I am referring to the document released by 10000 hours today that states quite clearly 'One member, one vote' and as you have been crystal clear in your agreement and understanding that is simply not true.

[Guest somner9]

Well done to GLS and REA for managing to progress this project to it's current position. Just ignore the lunatics and all their childish hysterics.

Somner doesn't even understand the concept and has shown no desire over the last 12 months to want to understand the facts.

Sid, well he just loves the attention.

Why not ignore as many other fans as you care to mention too? What's it got to do with us?

[GLS]

Perhaps, come November, you can lobby for a vote on this courtesy of your CIC membership.

Correct

[Drew]

Again I 'm not talking about or referring to you, or your position. is that clear?

I am referring to the document released by 10000 hours today that states quite clearly 'One member, one vote' and as you have been crystal clear in your agreement and understanding that is simply not true.

Sorry, but this is idiocy. I'm trying sooooooooooooooo hard not to stoop to Sid levels of juvenile abuse here, but you are talking unadulterated nonsense, and spamming this board with unsubstantiated charges, claims, and general forth that is not advancing the discussion one iota.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Drew

[St. Sid]

WTF are you slabbering on about now? Explain the relevance of this or gie's peace.

If you keep things sensible, you've generally got a lot of decent points to make. Descend into this puerile trolling, and you simply discredit everything else you are trying to say.

Give it up, John.

Its a simple enough point to understand Drew. You are having a go at the existing BoD on a thread in general discussion questioning their integrity. Here on the club sale BoDs you tongue is hanging out of GLS's erse like he's the new messiah. Let's not forget that GLS has taken some time and trouble to negotiate a deal for himself with 10000 Hours after telling us all that the CIC was scumbaggery and we shouldn't give them the light of day. The idea of the CIC is to achieve something very different in the running of our club....not just a like for like exchange of self-interested commercially minded people on board. We want community representation as well as rank and file fan membership. Today's revelations offer nothing like that.

We need a balanced board that is more representative. What we have is three commerially minded individuals. That is not what the CIC was supposed to be about. We are going to end up with a BoD in place that have got their based on our funds rather than their own. The support is already the biggest investors in SMFC. Now we are being asked to supplement a regime change of some commercial directors for another set of commercial directors with no gain other than the opportunity to vote them off. We need more people on the interim BoD and ther is f"k all good reason why that opportunity has been closed off. Why has it been closed off?

[WeeBud]

Again I 'm not talking about or referring to you, or your position. is that clear?

I am referring to the document released by 10000 hours today that states quite clearly 'One member, one vote' and as you have been crystal clear in your agreement and understanding that is simply not true.

If you listen (metaphorically) to others on this site instead of just shouting loudest you will find that "my" position is one common to most who have taken the time to try and understand what is going on with the "CiC" project.

Within the CiC "one memeber one vote" is what it says on the tin!!

[St. Sid]

Perhaps, come November, you can lobby for a vote on this courtesy of your CIC membership.

Drew, that is by no means clear though is it. My reading of the constitution is very different to that scenario. The BoD will have the say on what goes on the agenda. They will also be able to veto any member that the support elects to the BoD by a simple majority of the BoD members - not the overall CIC membership. With a premanent member on the CIC BoD that puts us in a bit of trouble.

Are the powers of the interim BoD's curtailed in any way. I don't think they are.

In any case, why can't the interim BoD that contains the existing commercial director not drop the shite idea now? The fans don;t want this, I doubt any of the community members would want carers charged....it is a purely commercially minded decision. We are getting another commercially minded BoD in place of a commercially minded BoD. Is that worth the additional investment by the support?

[Guest somner9]

If you listen (metaphorically) to others on this site instead of just shouting loudest you will find that "my" position is one common to most who have taken the time to try and understand what is going on with the "CiC" project.

Within the CiC "one memeber one vote" is what it says on the tin!!

Correction wee bud if i may?

within the cic a £10 a month member gets one vote, within the cic.

But a 1877 cic member votes in the cic, and on the board/agm etc of SMFC.

at my school that counted as more than one vote!

Just to add: on reading the pathetic state of the latest hashed together it document, It appears a £10 a month member has to stand back in case one of his (More Equal) fellow cic members wants a drink at the same time as him. Away and bile yer can wie that wan. thought up no doubt in Kill - Malcolm

Edited May 22, 2012 by somner9

[Drew]

Its a simple enough point to understand Drew. You are having a go at the existing BoD on a thread in general discussion questioning their integrity. Here on the club sale BoDs you tongue is hanging out of GLS's erse like he's the new messiah. Let's not forget that GLS has taken some time and trouble to negotiate a deal for himself with 10000 Hours after telling us all that the CIC was scumbaggery and we shouldn't give them the light of day. The idea of the CIC is to achieve something very different in the running of our club....not just a like for like exchange of self-interested commercially minded people on board. We want community representation as well as rank and file fan membership. Today's revelations offer nothing like that.

We need a balanced board that is more representative. What we have is three commerially minded individuals. That is not what the CIC was supposed to be about. We are going to end up with a BoD in place that have got their based on our funds rather than their own. The support is already the biggest investors in SMFC. Now we are being asked to supplement a regime change of some commercial directors for another set of commercial directors with no gain other than the opportunity to vote them off. We need more people on the interim BoD and ther is f"k all good reason why that opportunity has been closed off. Why has it been closed off?

I'm already feeling dirty for doing so, but I'll bite....for the last time.

I'm very clear about my personal position in terms of the possibility of the current BoD voting to permit direct entry of a newco club to the SPL. That's there for everyone to see, should they give tuppence what I might think about that scenario. I've discussed the matter at some length with Stewart Gilmour, so I'm not simply going down the keyboard warrior route that some on here seem happy to stick to. What I opt to do in response to the vote next week is my prerogative, and this applies equally to every other supporter of St Mirren and the other SPL clubs. Your repeated attempts to cast me as a traitorous villain say a great deal more about you, than they do about me, IMO.

Now, as for my tongue hanging out of GLS's arse. Aside from putting the guy off his lunch, quite what you're getting at here is beyond me.

I've met Gordon, and have formed my own impression of him as we do in respect of anyone we cross paths with. I met him in the context of his work getting the new stadium in place and operating. I'm basing any opinion I have of him in the context of what he has brought to St Mirren and might bring in the future. Likewise Tony Fitzpatrick and Richard Atkinson. These guys aren't my mates, and would most likely walk past me in the street. I'm entirely comfortable with that, so have no reason to try and curry favour with any of them.

I also have a great deal of respect for Stewart Gilmour and the other members of the current SMFC board, but they are moving on. I'm now looking forward.

Edit - typo

Edited May 22, 2012 by Drew

[St. Sid]

Correction wee bud if i may?

within the cic a £10 a month member gets one vote, within the cic.

But a 1877 cic member votes in the cic, and on the board/agm etc of SMFC.

at my school that counted as more than one vote!

I do think that people need to take a step back and consider how much the goal posts have shifted and the behaviours that we have seen in this process. I am still very much in favour of fan ownership and that 10000 Hours are the best people to deliver it. However, sometimes too much has to be surrendered to achieve the end result...and we need to be absolutely clear on the end result that we are getting - as people have been pitched to throughout a significant period of change.

When this all first began it was pitched as being about the community - one club / one town....etc, etc, etc. Is that still at the cruxt of what we are getting? It was supposed to be a new era of transparency and integrity for the club - the process and the negotiations have shat all over that ideal.

Take a fresh look at this. Is it actually delivering what it said on the tin. Or has it been compromised to the extent were it pretty much puts us back to square one? What is this vote in January actually going to get us - a stitched up commercially minded BoD that will be untouchable for 3 years no matter what it does. One that will happily trade away its values to achieve its goals.

I see very little coming out now about what the CIC will deliver, just an ongoing bun fight about whether it should happen or not.

Will 10000 Hours deliver a secure future for the club?

Will 10000 Hours be more transparent?

Will 10000 Hours involve the community and the rank and file supporter in its decision making process?

Will 10000 Hours develop the club?

Will 10000 Hours put the fans and the community before the commerciallisation of football?

The values above certainly appeared to be at the core of the aims of 10000 Hours when it was pitched way back when this all began. The behaviours demonstrated appear to be about who controls what and the power struggle to achieve that.

It is now time for 10000 Hours to demonstrate that it will deliver against its initial aims. All I am hearing at the moment is a desire to control the club.

[div]

The alternative through not backing the bid in sufficient numbers is that the club WILL be sold to a.n.other private investor or consortium.

You take your chances with that. It could be a Sheikh Mansour type, or it could be a Craig Whyte type.

You take your chances and once the shares are sold then that is it, control is gone and we sit back and wait and see what happens.

The 10000Hours proposal is the only way we can guarantee the club remains in the hands of the supporters. We have under 24 days now to make sure we get sufficient numbers behind it to make that a reality.

[St. Sid]

I'm already feeling dirty for doing so, but I'll bite....for the last time.

I'm very clear about my personal position in terms of the possibility of the current BoD voting to permit direct entry of a newco club to the SPL. That's there for everyone to see, should they give tuppence what I might think about that scenario. I've discussed the matter at some length with Stewart Gilmour, so I'm not simply going down the keyboard warrior route that some on here seem happy to stick to. What I opt to do in response to the vote next week is my prerogative, and this applies equally to every other supporter of St Mirren and the other SPL clubs. Your repeated attempts to cast me as a traitorous villain say a great deal more about you, than they do about me, IMO.

Now, as for my tongue hanging out of GLS's arse. Aside from putting the guy off his lunch, quite what you're getting at here is beyond me.

I've met Gordon, and have formed my own impression of him as we do in respect of anyone we cross paths with. I met him in the context of his work getting the new stadium in place and operating. I'm basing any opinion I have of him in the context of what he has brought to St Mirren and might bring in the future. Likewise Tony Fitzpatrick and Richard Atkinson. These guys aren't my mates, and would most likely walk past me in the street. I'm entirely comfortable with that, so have no reason to try and curry favour with any of them.

I also have a great deal of respect for Stewart Gilmour and the other members of the current SMFC board, but they are moving on. I'm now looking forward.

I am pretty much of the same mind. I have only met GLS a couple of times - once at Saints Aid, where I was told not to mention the CIC and then at a meeting at the club. He does have an excellent reputation with my fellow supporters and I have the greatest respect for that. I have met Richard a few times, and have no reason to doubt his integrity either....ditto Tony F and ditto SG.......up until recently I would have said the same of KMG. The point you are missing is that all of the above are commercially minded people. Where is the representation fro the community organisations, where is the representation from the rank and file support? It is not there? Why?

[Guest somner9]

The alternative through not backing the bid in sufficient numbers is that the club WILL be sold to a.n.other private investor or consortium.

You take your chances with that. It could be a Sheikh Mansour type, or it could be a Craig Whyte type.

You take your chances and once the shares are sold then that is it, control is gone and we sit back and wait and see what happens.

The 10000Hours proposal is the only way we can guarantee the club remains in the hands of the supporters. We have under 24 days now to make sure we get sufficient numbers behind it to make that a reality.

So the selling consortium have another bidder/bidders waiting to move forward in 24 days?

And obviously 10000 hours mark 4 by definition must mean there were at least 3 other ways? (that was just a josh right there)

Edited May 22, 2012 by somner9

[div]

So the selling consortium have another bidder/bidders waiting to move forward in 24 days?

The selling consortium have imposed the deadline for a formal offer from 10000Hours. You can take from that what you will.

[Guest somner9]

The selling consortium have imposed the deadline for a formal offer from 10000Hours. You can take from that what you will.

It'd be nice if they had other bids to let the fans at least know the make up. without going all aunt sally 'who are theese peepul?'

[David Mc]

Its a simple enough point to understand Drew. You are having a go at the existing BoD on a thread in general discussion questioning their integrity. Here on the club sale BoDs you tongue is hanging out of GLS's erse like he's the new messiah. Let's not forget that GLS has taken some time and trouble to negotiate a deal for himself with 10000 Hours after telling us all that the CIC was scumbaggery and we shouldn't give them the light of day. The idea of the CIC is to achieve something very different in the running of our club....not just a like for like exchange of self-interested commercially minded people on board. We want community representation as well as rank and file fan membership. Today's revelations offer nothing like that.

We need a balanced board that is more representative. What we have is three commerially minded individuals. That is not what the CIC was supposed to be about. We are going to end up with a BoD in place that have got their based on our funds rather than their own. The support is already the biggest investors in SMFC. Now we are being asked to supplement a regime change of some commercial directors for another set of commercial directors with no gain other than the opportunity to vote them off. We need more people on the interim BoD and ther is f"k all good reason why that opportunity has been closed off. Why has it been closed off?

Are you suggesting Gordon and Tony aren't supporters and haven't invested in St.Mirren over the years? Surely they are perfectly placed to be on the interim board.

[St. Sid]

The alternative through not backing the bid in sufficient numbers is that the club WILL be sold to a.n.other private investor or consortium.

You take your chances with that. It could be a Sheikh Mansour type, or it could be a Craig Whyte type.

You take your chances and once the shares are sold then that is it, control is gone and we sit back and wait and see what happens.

The 10000Hours proposal is the only way we can guarantee the club remains in the hands of the supporters. We have under 24 days now to make sure we get sufficient numbers behind it to make that a reality.

What actual control is being offered by 10000 Hours though? That is the point. Immediately the community representation has been dropped along with the rank and file fan representation on the BoD. Moving forward the BoD has the right to reject any members that the fans elect. Even if they do accept the elected member to the BoD they can then vote them off if they disagree or become overly transparent. With a premanent member on the BoD of the CIC they will always have an advantage on who gets elected to the SMFC BoD as that appears to be a vote by the 10000 Hours CIC BoD members rather than the rank and file CIC members. Again, this is based on a quick review of what is only a partially complete draft constitution. Once we agree to that constitution we're stuck with it. When is this actually going to be discussed by the members - after the deal is done.

At the last meeting we were told that as soon as this stage was reached there woulod be public meetings scheduled to get stuck into the specifics of how the CIC will actually function. At the moment only 10000 Hours understands that.

[Drew]

I am pretty much of the same mind. I have only met GLS a couple of times - once at Saints Aid, where I was told not to mention the CIC and then at a meeting at the club. He does have an excellent reputation with my fellow supporters and I have the greatest respect for that. I have met Richard a few times, and have no reason to doubt his integrity either....ditto Tony F and ditto SG.......up until recently I would have said the same of KMG. The point you are missing is that all of the above are commercially minded people. Where is the representation fro the community organisations, where is the representation from the rank and file support? It is not there? Why?

Would you agree that the ship needs steadying during the transition period - ie: until the AGM in November?

I reckon the interim arrangements seem pretty sensible. It is then up to all shareholders (whether members of the CIC or otherwise) to vote on who will make up the club board. Presumably similar arrangments will also be made in the context of the CIC board.

I have no reason to be suspicious as to the motivation of the interim CIC board members during this transition period. Sometimes we all need to take a punt. If I sign up (and it is still an IF), then I'll be signing up in the knowledge that I will have a say in the not too distant future. I can't see any desirable or viable alternative being offered (I'm still waiting for the launch of somner9's initiative with some anticipation).

The proposed interim arrangements don't seem unreasonable to me.

[Drew]

It'd be nice if they had other bids to let the fans at least know the make up. without going all aunt sally 'who are theese peepul?'

Whay not call Mr Gilmour and ask him?

[St. Sid]

Are you suggesting Gordon and Tony aren't supporters and haven't invested in St.Mirren over the years? Surely they are perfectly placed to be on the interim board.

Not at all....however, if you take the case of GLS he has already negotiated his position in the CIC based on his own personal financial interests. SG and the other consortium members might also end up with roles - who knows. What we don't have on the interim BoD is representation that does not have personal commercial interests in the club.

[Drew]

Not at all....however, if you take the case of GLS he has already negotiated his position in the CIC based on his own personal financial interests. SG and the other consortium members might also end up with roles - who knows. What we don't have on the interim BoD is representation that does not have personal commercial interests in the club.

You could arguably say that about every shareholder.

You seem to be focussing a great deal onthe interim arrangments, hence my point above as to the ship being steadied during the transition period.

[div]

It'd be nice if they had other bids to let the fans at least know the make up. without going all aunt sally 'who are theese peepul?'

I've no idea who else if anyone they might be talking to. Maybe they just want closure on 10000Hours bid, I don't think anyone could blame them for that.

Having a deadline on the deal is a significant development. One way or the other we will know in just over three weeks time if the fans back the 10000Hours bid or not.

If they don't then we will just need to sit back and wait and see what happens. Pardon the pun but it's pretty much black and white.