The Day Fan Ownership Died!

[Stuart Dickson]

After the clarion call to man the barricades a sum total of 13 new peeps have sent in their direct debits.

Given that within the 643 direct debiters there will be a significant number that are not saints fans, but individuals from the various organisations desperate to get their hands on the assets and facilities at SMP for peppercorns. How many actual saints fans do you think there are in the staggering total of 643???

500?

400?

300?

Lower ?

Do you genuinely believe any of that pish?

Somner, why would anyone who was interested in getting St Mirren assets be submitting at the £10 per month direct debit level that you are going on about? The only thing that appears to be on offer is a vote in an election every 3 years or 1 year depending on what part of the constitution you read, and access to a members bar that a non St Mirren supporter is unlikely to ever use anyway, and which may well be open to the general public anyway.

As far as I know I am the only non St Mirren fan in at direct debit level. I can assure you I have absolutely no interest in a 50 mile round trip to Paisley for a free sausage roll when I can buy a much better one in my home town for 40p at Thomas Denholms and even if I was to take one of my extremely rare trips to Greenhill Road, the last thing I would be interested in on a match day would be going to the Members Bar for an overpriced Cola in deepest darkest Ferguslie Park.

The reason I have a direct debit form in is for exactly the same reason I joined the Exeter City, Stockport County, and Carlisle United Supporters Trusts. I just wanted to see it work.

[Bud the Baker]

GLS has put up his shareholding to raise funds for the takeover. Those shares are being used to get those who pay £25,000 closer to the club. And REA quite clearly states that anything the CIC uses that costs the club money, will be paid for by the CIC. I don't see a problem in any of that.

GLS expects to get money back once the debt has been repayed but that's not my main point, just a distraction, the CIC are selling goods & services which the club could just as easily do and cut out the middleman - I stand by my original point and reckon that the relationship between the CIC and the selling consortium seems too cosy.

[Guest somner9]

17 days till the fat lady sings

[Guest somner9]

GLS expects to get money back once the debt has been repayed but that's not my main point, just a distraction, the CIC are selling goods & services which the club could just as easily do and cut out the middleman - I stand by my original point and reckon that the relationship between the CIC and the selling consortium seems too cosy.

Thats the feckin understatement of the century. What other company does anyone know that gives a prospective buyer and his mate a job for two years and unfettered access to all the goings on at the club, then supports their proposal to sell chunks of SMFC assets for next to nothing.

And even with everything stacked in their favour their still crashing and burning on each version they trot out. The message is clear the rank & file don't trust Atkinsons lot, and they certainly don't trust someone that does a Lord Lucan for months on end. Mr Atkinson you get what you give!

Isn't it written somewhere, by some bloke that it's better to give than receive? That is unless your a £25k straight on the BoD Gordy/Atky Exec!

[St. Sid]

As far as I know I am the only non St Mirren fan in at direct debit level.

But you don't know do you? We have already seen the massive GLS voting group of one join the ranks of the direct debiters. There is plenty of scope for abuse in this system in order to get control of the club. Ordinarily you would have to pay around £2-3Million. For the sake of a few direct debits put in play for just 12 months you can take control of the club for three years. Realistically you could swing yourself a seat of a 5-person BoD of the CIC for less than £15K. Unliely as it may be, there is nothing to stop it happening.

The bottom line is that St Mirren has a hardcore of around 3,000 supporters that turn up regularly. They appear to have rejected the offer of empowerment for just £10-a-month. There are quite a number of far flung fuds on the list. However, there used to be a list of pledgers on the 10000 Hours site and it looked like less than 100 had given permission for their name only to be published. I think that list has disappeared from the web site now.

However, I still agree that it is unlikely. However, I also think it is unlikely that the 3,000 hardcore fans will have representation on the BoD.

[Stuart Dickson]

But you don't know do you? We have already seen the massive GLS voting group of one join the ranks of the direct debiters. There is plenty of scope for abuse in this system in order to get control of the club. Ordinarily you would have to pay around £2-3Million. For the sake of a few direct debits put in play for just 12 months you can take control of the club for three years. Realistically you could swing yourself a seat of a 5-person BoD of the CIC for less than £15K. Unliely as it may be, there is nothing to stop it happening.

The bottom line is that St Mirren has a hardcore of around 3,000 supporters that turn up regularly. They appear to have rejected the offer of empowerment for just £10-a-month. There are quite a number of far flung fuds on the list. However, there used to be a list of pledgers on the 10000 Hours site and it looked like less than 100 had given permission for their name only to be published. I think that list has disappeared from the web site now.

However, I still agree that it is unlikely. However, I also think it is unlikely that the 3,000 hardcore fans will have representation on the BoD.

If there were that many non St Mirren fans desperate to get their hands on the clubs assets - as Somner suggested - then the CIC would be over subscribed just now and they wouldn't need anything at all to appeal to the St Mirren fans.

[davidg]

Should add that all the £25k and £3k membership fees are not, repeat NOT going into SMFC.

What's your point?

As a company We spent around £65k over a 3 year period with St Mirren and we have never had a single phone call asking us to pledge or try and sell us anything to do with the CIC.

It would be easy for RA (Commercial Director) to get the figures of all the businesses who have spent a fair bit supporting the club in recent years and phone them first in an attempt to get big bucks out of them for the takeover but he hasn't. He obviously doesn't want the CIC to have an adverse effect on the commercial revenue the club already gets. So who care if all of this money doesn't go to the club.

Edited May 28, 2012 by davidg

[St. Sid]

What's your point?

We spent around £65k over a 3 year period with St Mirren and we have never had a single phone call asking us to pledge or try and sell us anything to do with the CIC.

It would be easy for RA (Commercial Director) to get the figures of all the businesses who have spent a fair bit supporting the club in recent years and phone them first in an attempt to get big bucks out of them for the takeover but he hasn't. He obviously doesn't want the CIC to have an adverse effect on the commercial revenue the club already gets. So who care if all of this money doesn't go to the club.

Are you claiming that 1877 club and 87 club membership is not available to existing commercial supporters of St Mirren? You're starting to post as much pish as somner9.

[davidg]

Are you claiming that 1877 club and 87 club membership is not available to existing commercial supporters of St Mirren? You're starting to post as much pish as somner9.

Read my post. Did I claim that? No.

The point is RA isn't trying to take anything away from what's already there.

[St. Sid]

Read my post. Did I claim that? No.

The point is RA isn't trying to take anything away from what's already there.

Like I said....somner9 has posted some amount of bollox trying to run down the CIC. There's no need to join in to counter it.

Businesses just the same as individuals have x amount to spend at the club. Someone might decide to invest in the 87 club rather sponsor a players shirt for example. The CIC will have an impact on the club as it requires fan and commercial investment to finance it. This is coming from revenue sources that might have been spent on things from football tops to corporate hospitality. It will have an impact on club income for around 10 years or so all being well. After that the benefits go the other way with additional income going into the club - if that's what the unknown CIC BoD decide to do with the money - they could opt to invest it elsewhere such as other subsiduary CICs / projects.

It will have some impact - how much is debatable, but the base point undeniable.

This isn't a whose the best striker ever debate. This is about making sure everyone understands the implications of the CIC going ahead. Respecting your fellow fans would be a good place to start daftybawz.

[Guest somner9]

What's your point?

As a company We spent around £65k over a 3 year period with St Mirren and we have never had a single phone call asking us to pledge or try and sell us anything to do with the CIC.

It would be easy for RA (Commercial Director) to get the figures of all the businesses who have spent a fair bit supporting the club in recent years and phone them first in an attempt to get big bucks out of them for the takeover but he hasn't. He obviously doesn't want the CIC to have an adverse effect on the commercial revenue the club already gets. So who care if all of this money doesn't go to the club.

Instead of SMFC selling £25k all singing all SRTB memberships, another company is doing that, using all the facilities and perks of SMP and putting zero into the club who'se facilities and perks it is to offer. sorry what's in this for my club? I can see a SRTB club getting so much out of it.

Add to that a number of organisations have already (note the absence of any, repeat ANY vote on this) been promised use of extensive facilities at SMP to set up THEIR commercial enterprise, returning NOTHING to SMFC and all for a pittance of rent.

In Gordon Scott's CiC...

I see him getting a return on the shares that were previously worthless (he aint giving them away folks), I see the BoD has been promised and divi'd out between everyone who as yet have promised to put in nothing to SMFC or even the CiC, and i see outside organisations clammering to make money out of SMFC but I have not seen one piece of information (Speculative or forecast) telling me and other saints fans what's in it for SMFC and what revenue are they going to generate for SMFC

eah i bet they love that Clyde constitution that lets them make their own rules, but hey, thats what their doing anyway why should the fans bother?

Can't you see that the FANS have been from the outset nothing more than a tick box for this social experiment. Everyone, yes everyone else was consulted and asked what piece of the pie they wanted before any sort of fan influence/vote was even considered.

If as Gordon Scott claims "By engaging the fans and giving them the opportunity to not only voice their opinions but actually do something with those opinions is very much in keeping with today's interactive society."

How come they came to the FANS last after all the goodies and BoD seats had been divi'd up? How come there is not one FAN body involved with this??? Someone explain that lot to me, because as far as i can see the FANS are being duped if they think they've got any influence.

Good job it's been based on the Clyde model, we might need to re-invent ourselves a couple of times over just like them!

Edited May 28, 2012 by somner9

[St. Sid]

I really am starting to think that somner9 is actually 10000 Hours trying to make resistence futile through f"kwitted summarising of genuine fans concerns.

However, I think there is an important point taht he is perhaps trying to avoid / fog or just not quite managing to get to.

Fans will be putting over a million pounds into a CIC - that will see no genuine value for the club. In ten years time in theory that £120K additional investment will continue and according to the blah, blah any funding from additional CIC projects undertaken in the interim's profits should start going inot the club? IS that clear from the constitution - or could the funding be diverted elsewhere should the BoD decide that what they want to do whilst just maintaining the interest on our debt through renegotiating with the social funders ensuring that St Mirren fans keep funding it to keep the 52% shareholding in fans hands. Does the CIC negate that scenario?

[davidg]

If as Gordon Scott claims "By engaging the fans and giving them the opportunity to not only voice their opinions but actually do something with those opinions is very much in keeping with today's interactive society."

How come they came to the FANS last after all the goodies and BoD seats had been divi'd up? How come there is not one FAN body involved with this???

How come you haven't asked Gordon Scott?

[Stuart Dickson]

I really am starting to think that somner9 is actually 10000 Hours trying to make resistence futile through f"kwitted summarising of genuine fans concerns.

However, I think there is an important point taht he is perhaps trying to avoid / fog or just not quite managing to get to.

Fans will be putting over a million pounds into a CIC - that will see no genuine value for the club. In ten years time in theory that £120K additional investment will continue and according to the blah, blah any funding from additional CIC projects undertaken in the interim's profits should start going inot the club? IS that clear from the constitution - or could the funding be diverted elsewhere should the BoD decide that what they want to do whilst just maintaining the interest on our debt through renegotiating with the social funders ensuring that St Mirren fans keep funding it to keep the 52% shareholding in fans hands. Does the CIC negate that scenario?

I've given up on Somners rants. He used to make reasonable points but he's lost it now with his latest rant. I really can't see where he's coming from. Gordon Scott is selling his shares. He's entitled to do so as they belong to him. He's opting to sell them through 10000hours helping Gordon Scott get money for his shares and helping 10000hours achieve the required funding to make member ownership of the club a reality. No-one of sane mind should have any issue with this at all but Somner continues to persist in making an arse of himself, seemingly now calling for the Consortium to give up the majority control of the club to instead run a share floatation the bring money into the club. While that might be nice it's hardly realistic. Gilmour, McAusland, Purvies, Campbell and Marshall are not about to donate their shares to the fans, and neither is Gordon Scott - and I don't think anyone is under the impression that this is some sort of generous benevolent act by any of those parties. They aren't John Boyle after all.

As for the money issues that you raise Sid - I remember Richard covering them when he talked about the bar. He made it quite clear back then that profits raised from 10000hours ventures would belong to 10000hours, and that the financial benefit to St Mirren would come from increased use of the facilities - which 10000hours would pay for - and from the greater involvement and links with business and the local community. He went on to say though that since 10000hours membership is made up, almost exclusively of St Mirren supporters, then it was entirely possible that once the funders are repaid that 10000hours members may opt to have the £10 per month membership fee either waived completely, or just paid straight into the football club.

Sid, I'm involved in negotiations through here which are pretty similar. Here the idea is that an Umbrella company, incorporating four clubs, be set up to run a community facility. There's going to be initial borrowings, and there will be maintenance costs that will need to be met and the Umbrella company is going to have to generate profits to make the business plan viable - however it's been agreed here that each year the profit levels would be reviewed and that if we are ahead of the maintenance budget then there could be a payout to each of the four clubs involved in the project. It should be a no brainer but unfortunately, as at St Mirren, in Wishaw there are clearly quite a few people who have no brains.

[Guest somner9]

How come you haven't asked Gordon Scott?

Strangely now that he's in the CiC and on the BoD the threat if the cic goes tits up that the club would be saddled with its debt, and starts with a creditor (him) isn't an issue to him anymore???

I can't imagine what first attracted him to a proposal that gifts him a seat on the BoD (no waste of time voting nonsense), and gves him payback on what were to be worthless shares??? Any clues?

[Stuart Dickson]

Strangely now that he's in the CiC and on the BoD the threat if the cic goes tits up that the club would be saddled with its debt, and starts with a creditor (him) isn't an issue to him anymore???

I can't imagine what first attracted him to a proposal that gifts him a seat on the BoD (no waste of time voting nonsense), and gves him payback on what were to be worthless shares??? Any clues?

Correct me if I'm wrong but does his shareholding not already guarantee him a seat on the board?

Edited May 28, 2012 by Stuart Dickson

[bud77]

Sid, 10000hours members still hold the balance of power. They still hold 52% of the clubs shares. The GLS agreement doesn't change any of that as the shares being put on offer for the £25,000 members are from the 48% minority shareholding. Where the goalposts have shifted a little is that there now appears to be a caveat that has been added that a 10000hours proposal would need to carry a 75% vote before the full 52% shareholding would be used as a block vote - which when you think about it is probably pretty fair.

Like with other member organisations there will be a mechanism in place that triggers a vote. Using the Motherwell AC Constitution as an example - just because it really is crystal clear - all it takes to call an EGM is a petition of 10 fully paid up, voting, members. So, for example, if the football club board decided to put up prices for a particular group and this was unpopular the petition could be raised, the EGM called and then to veto the increase 10000hours members would simply need a 75% majority to block the price rises. Even if the 75% wasn't achieved it could still be blocked if there is another minority shareholder that is also against those increases.

Clarity on the number of members required on the petition to call an EGM is required on the constitution document IMO but I don't think there is a considerable shift at all.

The block vote would be used if a minimum of 75% voted for an item on the agenda, if it's less than 75% the vote would be split accordingly. For example the CiC could have a split 50/50 in an issue which would mean the 48% of shareholders would then have valid votes and let's face it there's not many times you'll get 75% of Saints fans to agree.

The draft constitution doesn't state the amount of members needed to call an EGM, whether this will be a percentage of the membership or a minimal amount will likely be decided when the constitution is ratified. I'd think for major issues such as rongers or league reconstruction it would be fairly easy to get the support for an EGM. For issues such as ticket prices fro diabled/carers it might require a little work to gather enough support to call and EGM The vote would be counted and the CiC board would instruct the club board which way to vote or how to split the vote which would bring in other shareholders. The ordinary members would be the largest group so with OMOV what matters to the rank and file would be heard. There may well be other people who are not Saints supporters signing up but would they be likely to vote on any football related issues or restrict their votes to community related issues.

The 1877 club burb doesn't actually state anything about them being members of the CiC, it's a non-executive board membership and the shares are part of the 48% so all they might have is the equivalent shareholder vote and an advisory role to the club board. I don;t see anything wrong with the club or CiC having access to successful business people for advice.

The interim board has always been part of the plan, the club has to keep running until the CiC membership hear the ideas of the people standing for the board and have a chance to vote for them. Just because someone would be on the interim board does not necessarily mean they would remain or want to remain a board member.

What's your point?

As a company We spent around £65k over a 3 year period with St Mirren and we have never had a single phone call asking us to pledge or try and sell us anything to do with the CIC.

It would be easy for RA (Commercial Director) to get the figures of all the businesses who have spent a fair bit supporting the club in recent years and phone them first in an attempt to get big bucks out of them for the takeover but he hasn't. He obviously doesn't want the CIC to have an adverse effect on the commercial revenue the club already gets. So who care if all of this money doesn't go to the club.

At one of the first meetings Richard stated that the CiC would not approach any business that supported Saints with hospitality, sponsorship etc as it would affect the income the club already has., it would be companies who don't have a commercial link with Saints that would be approached. It's good to hear he has stuck with this.

[St. Sid]

How come you haven't asked Gordon Scott?

How come your speaking on GLS's behalf?

Surely this is the time when he should be engaging with us and letting us know his intentions for the club. Will he be ensuring the SPL vote is dealt with as the fans wish it to be dealt with - or will that be dealt with on our behalf as he's been diven a mandate to act on our behalf by 10000 Hours? Will he be reversing the bollox decision to charge disabled fans carers? Has he actually read the f'k'n constitution and capable of explaining the detail to us or was his remit only to negotiate on his shares / directorship?

If GLS is to be on the BoD of SMFC as the shareholders representative it seems odd that they aren't getting to vote on that? Again we have no information on how that is going to work.

If GLS is on the SMFC BoD representing the CIC then we need to know how that is going to work.

At the moment as with most of the CIC thing we know hee-haw other than being told that we should pay money into it - just because.

[davidg]

How come your speaking on GLS's behalf?

I'm not. It's a forum for opinions isn't it?

Last I checked GLS was more than capable of speaking for himself and I'm sure if Somner asked him the questions directly GLS would answer. Hence the reason I asked " how come you haven't asked Gordon Scott?"

[St. Sid]

The block vote would be used if a minimum of 75% voted for an item on the agenda, if it's less than 75% the vote would be split accordingly. For example the CiC could have a split 50/50 in an issue which would mean the 48% of shareholders would then have valid votes and let's face it there's not many times you'll get 75% of Saints fans to agree.

The draft constitution doesn't state the amount of members needed to call an EGM, whether this will be a percentage of the membership or a minimal amount will likely be decided when the constitution is ratified. I'd think for major issues such as rongers or league reconstruction it would be fairly easy to get the support for an EGM. For issues such as ticket prices fro diabled/carers it might require a little work to gather enough support to call and EGM The vote would be counted and the CiC board would instruct the club board which way to vote or how to split the vote which would bring in other shareholders. The ordinary members would be the largest group so with OMOV what matters to the rank and file would be heard. There may well be other people who are not Saints supporters signing up but would they be likely to vote on any football related issues or restrict their votes to community related issues.

The 1877 club burb doesn't actually state anything about them being members of the CiC, it's a non-executive board membership and the shares are part of the 48% so all they might have is the equivalent shareholder vote and an advisory role to the club board. I don;t see anything wrong with the club or CiC having access to successful business people for advice.

The interim board has always been part of the plan, the club has to keep running until the CiC membership hear the ideas of the people standing for the board and have a chance to vote for them. Just because someone would be on the interim board does not necessarily mean they would remain or want to remain a board member.

At one of the first meetings Richard stated that the CiC would not approach any business that supported Saints with hospitality, sponsorship etc as it would affect the income the club already has., it would be companies who don't have a commercial link with Saints that would be approached. It's good to hear he has stuck with this.

Good post, but very much just the blah, blah line rather than providing any genuine assurances in terms of fan empowerment. As yet we still don't know how the SMFC BoD will be constructed. It looks as if the Directors of the CIC BoD will only be guided by fans should their be an exceptional vote - you point out that the disabled ticket issue is unlikely to be resolved that way. Even if it were we could end up with a 74% / 26% split. Only 76% of the vote carries across to the SMFC BoD - we don;t know who will be on that and were they will be coming from - how many members get on the BoD through the non-exec 1877 Club route.....it just says there's a route - it doesn't say it is restricted to one member. The CIC vote would be in the minority. We don't know who will be on the SMFC BoD or how they get on the BoD as there is no mention of that process in the constitution. We only know that there must be one Director from the CIC Board.

As for 10000 Hours not approaching businesses already involved in sponsoring, hospitality, etc, at SMFC....I'm not convinced davidg is qualified to advise on that, unless he has become head of marketing for the CIC overnight following his direct debit submission. We need to be very careful about accepting posts as gospel on such matters. Especially with the lack of transparency at the moment. Let's try and stick to what we actually know rather than accepting posts from Internet aliases.

[davidg]

Let's try and stick to what we actually know rather than accepting posts from Internet aliases.

Great advice Sid, that's why this is my last reply to you on this thread.

[St. Sid]

I'm not. It's a forum for opinions isn't it?

Last I checked GLS was more than capable of speaking for himself and I'm sure if Somner asked him the questions directly GLS would answer. Hence the reason I asked " how come you haven't asked Gordon Scott?"

Then by those rules somner9 was just as entitled to post what he put up....just as I am just as entitled to make the response I did. It is a forum, and at the moment quite an important one to the club's future.

You must concede that this has been quite a turnaround and fans are entitled to query the reasons for it. One minute we should all be scared of what is coming and reject it out of hand, now GLS is preaching to us that we should all invest our money in it. There is going to be a certain amount of cynicism around about his duplicity / incompetence - has to be one or the other.....either he preferred owning the club himself to fan ownership, or he didn't understand the CIC initially and took over a year to get to grips with it despite having a greater knowledge of it that the fans he now recommends invest in it. Either way, not knowing GLS and perhaps there are other fans in the same boat - it might help the CIC's case to understand that situation better, as well as a detailed explanation of how all this actually hangs together.

At the moment we have the usual shite soundbites. Hi I'm Victor GLS Kayem..."I'm such an egomaniac you should all believe the CIC is great because I say so." Sorry Davidg...we're going to need more than that.

[St. Sid]

Great advice Sid, that's why this is my last reply to you on this thread.

Spoilsport....just when it was getting fun.

My overall point davidg is that 10000 Hours have failed to raise them game for this last push to get fans to sign up. It seems to be along of the lines go and recruit as many people as you can. However, the cheerleaders are the ones being exposed here as 10000 Hours sit back and let fans do the work for them. They have produced a one page document that is frankly insulting in terms of its content. You are unable to defend the CIC becasue you don't have the tools available to do it. There is a lack of transparency and at this stage I think any of us would struggle to defend that.

As the days continue to tick down we can very quickly find ourselves signed up to something that nobody has understood heading headlong into decisions that will impact the future of our club for years to come with nothing but a nice fuzzy feeling with 10000 Hours and perhaps GLS holding all the aces. The process, the information, the detail, the constitution all sits neatly in 10000 Hours favour with the fans blissfully cheerleading our way into a situation we currently have very little control over.

Only the most extreme few are opposed to fan ownership and for much of this process that included GLS. We just want to have the process, the information, the detail that will empower us to support the CIC at this point in time.

That might not suit your new found enthusiasm for 10000 Hours; however having been on of the people that has had to take a lot of flak for us to get to this point, I don't think it is too much to ask to get detailed, clear information on how the CIC & SMFC will actually function beyond the nauseatingly trotted out...."it will be whatever you, the fans, want it to be." We wnat it to be f'k'n clear what we are signing up to. Why can't we have that now? It hardly instills confidence for such empowerment and transparency in the future.

[Robo]

The draft constitution doesn't state the amount of members needed to call an EGM, whether this will be a percentage of the membership or a minimal amount will likely be decided when the constitution is ratified. I'd think for major issues such as rongers or league reconstruction it would be fairly easy to get the support for an EGM. For issues such as ticket prices fro diabled/carers it might require a little work to gather enough support to call and EGM The vote would be counted and the CiC board would instruct the club board which way to vote or how to split the vote which would bring in other shareholders. The ordinary members would be the largest group so with OMOV what matters to the rank and file would be heard. There may well be other people who are not Saints supporters signing up but would they be likely to vote on any football related issues or restrict their votes to community related issues.

The draft articles state that the rules for calling a members meeting would be as per the Companies Act 2006, which states that 5% of members would be required to force a meeting. So assuming we will have around 1000 members, you'd need to garner support of around 50 or so. I think the same percentage is required for a resolution to be circulated for an AGM. I would imagine if its an issue that the members are genuinely concerned about, it shouldn't be too difficult to get 50 members together.

[Guest somner9]

16 days on the countdown, and only 3 more DD's in over the weekend. Guess that's it run it's course now?