The Day Fan Ownership Died!

[TsuMirren]

Not worth the Website it is printed on ? What a fcking " Shambles " Div doing his best with trying to flog a Dead Horse, With Richard riding Shergar in pursuit of a CIC ? c'mon If Richard and his B O D think I am buying into his wee club, Thet have another think comming ? see you Thursday M8 ?

I'll certainly be there on Thursday, if yiu know me then say hello and we can have a natter. I genuinely don't think it's a wee club, 600 or so Saints fans joining would make it impossible to be one anyway.

[div]

Named on a list of Pledgers that was put on the 10000 Hours Website as a supporter of the Original Scheme ? It has since changed on numerous occasions, and It is Not what I originally Pledged For ? You may Know more than I Do Div ? But this is not the Fan ownership model that I had originally signed up For ?

Absolutely agree its been difficult to keep track of the changes to 10000Hours as it has grown and developed over the past two years.

Mistakes were made, communication has been poor, and it has been frustrating for everyone.

At the end of the day the underlying opportunity hasn't changed though, the fans have the chance to own the majority shareholding of our football club.

[TsuMirren]

well if people are not named then how can you prove the vote has been counted in the correct manner - does it get counted by an independent unbiased authority

For online, the software can do the counting and an IT tech or two coukd check the integrity. For postals it probably would need an independent group to handle counts.

[buddiecat]

As I have asked before on the relevant thread, surely SMISA could at least tell us exactly what they unhappy with? I certainly would like to know.

To withdraw their support (all be it perhaps temporarily) is a helluva decision and to NOT tell fellow fans why is not good. Why all the secrecy? Get it out in the open FFS. What did the ask the CIC for and what was not forthcoming?

Peter, are you contradicting yourself in the bolded bit above, or am I reading you wrong?

The CIC have always stated - from meeting number one - that there will have to be an interim Board made up of members who know what they are doing, until the Constitution is tweaked, ratified and actual elections take place.

There will always be continuity on the Board to provide guidance and experience, and FF for that! Could you imagine a completely new board of novices being elected every two years or so? A recipe for disaster.

I am glad of that and I thought you would be too.

no i am not contradicting myself, the decision to have an interim board is part of the plan - i know that, but it's not the interim board who are posting on here, it is people trying to discredit other individuals posts and it does seem they are working on instructions in my opinion, and also i believe in sids opinion ( and yes i know he's as nutty as a fruitcake sometimes) Edited June 4, 2012 by buddiecat

[buddiecat]

You clearly hadn't read the FAQ's on the website because you asked a question that had already been answered on there.

thats correct i don't read on the 10000hrs site on a regular basis

[Vambo57]

no i am not contradicting myself, the decision to have an interim board is part of the plan - i know that, but it's not the interim board who are posting on here

You said:

"decisions have been made already on the way the cic will be run, fans are being treated with contempt, BoW saint said there would have been bedlam if it was put to the pledgers , this is one thing i have agreed with since day one,"

I think I get you now. Are you saying that only the Interim Board should be posting answers to questions put on here?

[buddiecat]

For online, the software can do the counting and an IT tech or two coukd check the integrity. For postals it probably would need an independent group to handle counts.

well i'm probably getting to far ahead with the question but not being aware of how online voting works in a secure democratic way i would like to know if it would be possible for an external polling company to take the vote, but that would be expensive so why not list each voters name under the proposal they choose then you can check and confirm your own vote

[buddiecat]

You said:

"decisions have been made already on the way the cic will be run, fans are being treated with contempt, BoW saint said there would have been bedlam if it was put to the pledgers , this is one thing i have agreed with since day one,"

I think I get you now. Are you saying that only the Interim Board should be posting answers to questions put on here?

no because the interim board are not in place as yet, what i am saying is - i agree with sid that certain people seem to be working together to discredit what he and other people are saying rather than just letting them get on with it, i may be wrong and he may be wrong but it seems to me that it is those who are pledging for commercial reasons of their own who are doing the discrediting because they see him as a threat to them getting their cake, and then i'm going on to agree with bow saint in the fact that bedlam would ensue in the way you describe, this is why i was and still am against pledging, the whole thing has changed since the beginnings so i thought i'd have another look at it, but i'm against for even more reasons now. so probably should not be posting on the subject i will leave it for now and simply read the posts, as i am contributing nothing that in any way will help the club. i'll just support as i always do by continuing to be a season ticket holder that way i know where my money will go - it will be paid directly to the club and not servicing a debt that helps commercial organisations promote their wares, incidentally on your question about SMISA i believe they pulled out as they can see a risk to the club ( along the lines of the new financial proposals from the spl) if the cic go bust and as parent company of smfc this would involve the club being subject to sanctions, and they do not wish to be part of any risk to the club, being as they are set up to help the club, just my view of it though

[buddiecat]

Colin. You like Me have been sold the " Pig in a Poke " ? Yes a fantastic Idea, But without the detail ? Fan ownership went out the window, When the Chairperson Elect ? Decided to take on Board an ex Director of SMFC and use Tony Fitzpatrick to sell this so called CIC ?

When have the People who matter - been consulted in the various cobbled together proposals from a stolen Constitution ? Buisness come's First - Fan's come last in this charade ?

If you think the Supporter of SMFC including our Independent Association, Are going into this with Stevie Wonder Eye's , And a " Tommy attitude " You and the Rest are simply deluded ? We want answers - and We want them Now ! None of this put up £ 10 and you will get a Vote nonscence ?

i feel i should know you dick - especially since you seem to know colin, so who are you ?

[FTOF]

Some great opinions posted so far.

[buddiecat]

I was the Drummer with the Piranhas ? The whole things Daft - I dont know why, You have to laugh , or Else You'd Cry ? I am a Buddie - Same as You cat ?

oh right thats how colin knows you, i only knew the name of the boring one

[BuddieinEK]

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

embararrasing, or potentially ilegal?

the Equality Act 2010 which updates and supercedes the Disability Discrimination act "provides legal rights for disabled people in the areas of access to goods, services and facilities including larger private clubs and land based transport services"

If you cannot access SMP without a carer, I reckon you have a good case for complaint!

Even if not, it stinks and is immoral!

[Stuart Dickson]

no because the interim board are not in place as yet, what i am saying is - i agree with sid that certain people seem to be working together to discredit what he and other people are saying rather than just letting them get on with it, i may be wrong and he may be wrong but it seems to me that it is those who are pledging for commercial reasons of their own who are doing the discrediting because they see him as a threat to them getting their cake, and then i'm going on to agree with bow saint in the fact that bedlam would ensue in the way you describe, this is why i was and still am against pledging, the whole thing has changed since the beginnings so i thought i'd have another look at it, but i'm against for even more reasons now. so probably should not be posting on the subject i will leave it for now and simply read the posts, as i am contributing nothing that in any way will help the club. i'll just support as i always do by continuing to be a season ticket holder that way i know where my money will go - it will be paid directly to the club and not servicing a debt that helps commercial organisations promote their wares, incidentally on your question about SMISA i believe they pulled out as they can see a risk to the club ( along the lines of the new financial proposals from the spl) if the cic go bust and as parent company of smfc this would involve the club being subject to sanctions, and they do not wish to be part of any risk to the club, being as they are set up to help the club, just my view of it though

Buddiecat - how would you like the forum to operate?

At the moment it's the guys who are pro CIC who can't win. If they post in favour of the CIC it's because they've got some sort of business or commercial interest. If they don't post they get accused of not answering questions or replying to points. And in this post you've accused them of trying to discredit you when you get picked up for posting something that's just plain wrong.

I'm pro CIC, not because I care about St Mirren, or because I want a place on the club board, or because I stand to get some sort of commercial contract. I'm pro CiC because having studied a number of Social Enterprises for my own local juvenile football club I firmly believe that it is the way forward for all football clubs and for football in general. Putting the senior football club at the centre of every community makes absolute sense whether you want to talk about making more use of an expensive stadium that only gets used for 90 minutes at a time 19 times in a season, or whether you talk about the business opportunity that comes from pulling resources with other like minded groups to get bigger discounts, or larger advertising and sponsorship contracts.

As for 10000hours well I said from day one that I thought St Mirren fans were too stupid to get this and I think I've been proved right. 10000hours haven't done themselves any favours with their PR, but when the lack of information became apparent who amongst the support stepped up to help out? Where was the community effort in there? Instead I got to read some paranoid rubbish about how fans were worried that suddenly millions of Rangers supporting charity workers were about to launch a takeover bid of the club giving away everything the club owns to good causes. Silver bullet? More like a foam one with a rubber suction pad stuck on the end.

[BoWSaint]

Sid, of course the fans will service the debt with their £10/month. This is why it is a fans buyout. In return we will get to decide the major decisions within the club. How can the guys in it for commercial reasons effectively run the club however they want if it is OMOV. The fans will vote against anything they don't like. We aren't simply handing the club over to a bunch of unknown people; we are buying the controlling interest for ourselves. We just need 10000hrs to be the vehicle for that to happen.

The fact that RA and 10000hrs have been around now for a couple of years show that they didn't come to make a quick buck. Stewart Gilmour and the board have had ample time to scrutinise them and work alongside them and still firmly believe that this is the best option for St Mirren to prosper. This BoD haven't done much wrong by us in the past. Why would they start now?

[St. Sid]

Sid, of course the fans will service the debt with their £10/month. This is why it is a fans buyout. In return we will get to decide the major decisions within the club. How can the guys in it for commercial reasons effectively run the club however they want if it is OMOV. The fans will vote against anything they don't like. We aren't simply handing the club over to a bunch of unknown people; we are buying the controlling interest for ourselves. We just need 10000hrs to be the vehicle for that to happen.

The fact that RA and 10000hrs have been around now for a couple of years show that they didn't come to make a quick buck. Stewart Gilmour and the board have had ample time to scrutinise them and work alongside them and still firmly believe that this is the best option for St Mirren to prosper. This BoD haven't done much wrong by us in the past. Why would they start now?

BoWSaint.....I love the way folk replicate my posting style after I use a technique just a couple of times.....By banging someones name in despite the fact that you have already quoted them you make it absolutely clear that you are the focus of your next point and laugh post.

This is where the documentation available so far is miles off of the blah, balh we have been getting fed verbally. The idea was always that the fans would always be responsible for providing the guidance for the running of the club - we would give the club BoD key directions - the examples used we things like ticket pricing. The BoD at SMFC would then be responsible for responding with detailed options with figures that the fans would then vote on. There is zero evidence of this in the constitution. Instead the only workable commintment in the constitutuion is for a vote every three years. Added to that we now have the complication of a non-exec BoD, who according to REA himself in the most recent PDE article have now been "empowered".

REA seems to be stuck on the OMOV and the 75% for direction. This would suggest that there is no room for manouver on this. I'm not convinced there needs to be - we just need to see some specifics around how the CIC interacts with SMFC. We saw some good ideas earlier in the thread about how the AGM could be used. This appears to only be in the heads of some fans rather than being documented anywhere. SMISA are not saying they are out of this. Neither are most fans including me - we just need to start seeing real information rather than press releases. I also want to be hearing from people not within the CIC - especially the consortium. I definitely won't be committing to this based on Internet posts from fans that have been too into their "rallying" from day one and have about as much credability as somner9 and animal....AND GLS!

Hard documented information is now required and it needs to be coming in the form of a written offer outlining exactly what we are getting. We need a formal proposal. I still cannot see why any fan would rally against that very basic request.

[St. Sid]

At the end of the day the underlying opportunity hasn't changed though, the fans have the chance to own the majority shareholding of our football club.

Div, this is the best post you have made in a while and it is bang on the money.

However, this now needs to be presented for what it is. I beleive that it is actually enough to progress so long as the number add up by a good safety margin.

The 52% shareholding is not quite as powerful as has been potrayed. However, it MAY still deliver what we want in terms of securing the future of the club for future generations. All the other salesy shite about community / one club / fan huddles in the members bar, needs to be set aside.

We now need an adult debate on the fundamentals of this - that is based on cold hard facts. At the heart of this is a pretty stiff number £1.5M (according to the latest article in the PDE). Let's not forget that when we were on the verge of going out of business on a month by month basis the debt was similar numbers. Could it all really have been solved with a £10-a-month increase in our season tickets and more debt purchased on the back of that?

If you strip away all the hoo-hah about the CIC....it is effectively fans signing up to fund £1.5Million worth of debt depending on how that figure has been reached - is it a negotiation with the consortium or is it removing the "donation" from GLS, inwhich case the figure is £1.7Million.

The non-exec Board gives away significant power from fan ownership for a fraction of the investment fans are making. The fan will actually be paying that money back with interest in the long run. So in reality we're getting completely f"k'd over in that particular deal.

The deferred payment to the consortium smacks of the fans monthly direct debits not being able to repay the debt - which maens there IS risk involved. The implications of that risk have been schmooj'd away with throw away comments and sweeping gestures with blah, blah...such as...then we'll be in the same position as we are now. Er, no I don't think that would be the case at all. Not paying back debt is never as easy as - ach, its just social funders - we'll just renegotiate it....have we got that agreement from the social funder? What does it say in their T&C's about actions they can take if we fail to repay the debt? How is the consortium's deferred payment going to work if we don't pay them. What are the T&C's? Then we have GLS telling us not to worry about defaulting on his debt...it looks like he has a permanent place on the BoD until the debt to him is repaid.

The opportunity is still worth pursuing - but we need to understand the risk beyond a few sweeping reassurance positive spin statements. No one is trying to derail anything - 10000 Hours and the consortium are trying to force this through within a given timescale, not the fans. The urgency to see detail has been driven by 10000 Hours not SMISA or the fans.

The secure future of the club is the critical factor here - not pushing the CIC over the finish line before fans are comfortable with the risk to the club.

[bud77]

BoWSaint.....I love the way folk replicate my posting style after I use a technique just a couple of times.....By banging someones name in despite the fact that you have already quoted them you make it absolutely clear that you are the focus of your next point and laugh post.

This is where the documentation available so far is miles off of the blah, balh we have been getting fed verbally. The idea was always that the fans would always be responsible for providing the guidance for the running of the club - we would give the club BoD key directions - the examples used we things like ticket pricing. The BoD at SMFC would then be responsible for responding with detailed options with figures that the fans would then vote on. There is zero evidence of this in the constitution. Instead the only workable commintment in the constitutuion is for a vote every three years. Added to that we now have the complication of a non-exec BoD, who according to REA himself in the most recent PDE article have now been "empowered".

REA seems to be stuck on the OMOV and the 75% for direction. This would suggest that there is no room for manouver on this. I'm not convinced there needs to be - we just need to see some specifics around how the CIC interacts with SMFC. We saw some good ideas earlier in the thread about how the AGM could be used. This appears to only be in the heads of some fans rather than being documented anywhere. SMISA are not saying they are out of this. Neither are most fans including me - we just need to start seeing real information rather than press releases. I also want to be hearing from people not within the CIC - especially the consortium. I definitely won't be committing to this based on Internet posts from fans that have been too into their "rallying" from day one and have about as much credability as somner9 and animal....AND GLS!

Hard documented information is now required and it needs to be coming in the form of a written offer outlining exactly what we are getting. We need a formal proposal. I still cannot see why any fan would rally against that very basic request.

The draft constitution is about the CiC not the football club, the football club already have a ratified constitution which will explain how shareholders can vote, how an egm can be called etc.

My reading of the 'empowerment' of the 1877 club members is that they will have the same empowerment as the remainder of the 48% shareholders - if there's a split vote by the majority shareholder (the CiC) their votes will decide the outcome rather than a cartel forcing any major issues through. I think this will give the 48% shareholders a much greater say as I can't imagine many scenarios when 75% of the fans will agree on an issue.

Isn't it the case just now that any shareholder can stand for election to the board, the problem is getting sufficient votes. Under the CiC weren't the 48% guaranteed at least one representative on the club board which in turn would mean more of the fans represented whether they were CiC members or not.

My one concern was regarding failure to pay back the loans but having read from various sources that the likely outcome of having one major creditor would be that creditor being involved in the running of the CiC rather than going to the expense of administrators has eased that concern slightly. This is much the same way as rongers had a representative from the bank on their board before Whyte took over.

[BoWSaint]

BoWSaint.....I love the way folk replicate my posting style after I use a technique just a couple of times.....By banging someones name in despite the fact that you have already quoted them you make it absolutely clear that you are the focus of your next point and laugh post.

But I didn't quote you in my last post?! Mainly because I was replying to your general theme rather than a specific post. Hence I used your name to direct the info in your direction. It wasn't a point and laugh post either. But whatever floats your boat..............................

[Guest somner9]

Reading over the last few pages of posts really brings the sadness of an opportunity lost right home to me. If you check the Herald article out, and the continued stance by 10000 hours that the people putting the money into the Cic can't be trusted with the detail! It shows unfortunately what Sid would call a "Old Gramarians" society sitting in judgement and witholding genuine participation for their own ego and ends.

To give an interview in a national newspaper (herald) that ridicules your cack-handed attempts, and failures in communication, and in that inetrview to still insist that instead of asking questions and challenging the shameful way fans have been kept out of setting up this Cic. All pledgers should just "suck it and see" defies belief!

Suck it and see, they tried that at Ibrox, Livingston, Airdrie, Dundee, Motherwell etc, etc... So 10000 hours if you believe you'll be successful without genuine fan involvement, and calling your proposal a "Co-operative" when we now know it's not, good luck! Because that's probably the only way you can hope to succeed, by luck, sadly though not by fans judgement.

[St. Sid]

The draft constitution is about the CiC not the football club, the football club already have a ratified constitution which will explain how shareholders can vote, how an egm can be called etc.

My reading of the 'empowerment' of the 1877 club members is that they will have the same empowerment as the remainder of the 48% shareholders - if there's a split vote by the majority shareholder (the CiC) their votes will decide the outcome rather than a cartel forcing any major issues through. I think this will give the 48% shareholders a much greater say as I can't imagine many scenarios when 75% of the fans will agree on an issue.

Isn't it the case just now that any shareholder can stand for election to the board, the problem is getting sufficient votes. Under the CiC weren't the 48% guaranteed at least one representative on the club board which in turn would mean more of the fans represented whether they were CiC members or not.

My one concern was regarding failure to pay back the loans but having read from various sources that the likely outcome of having one major creditor would be that creditor being involved in the running of the CiC rather than going to the expense of administrators has eased that concern slightly. This is much the same way as rongers had a representative from the bank on their board before Whyte took over.

I'm not a St Mirren shareholder so I have very little information on how St Mirren works. Is there currently a non-executive Board? Is every decision taken by the BoD of SMFC done by share of votes or is it by majority vote of the directors? The CIC constitution guarantees only one place on the SMFC BoD.

The debt management you described about is purely a verbal blah, blah. What we really need to see is the T&Cs that have been agreed with the social funder, the consortium and GLS.

Fans opinions on what may or may not happen will not matter when push comes to shove and the fans / CIC initiatives are not able to support the debt repayment. Have SMISA seen these documents, all the finance projections, etc? I don't know - I am not involved with SMISA. I know that I haven't seen them and judging by the responses on here it looks like none of the fan rallying CIC supporters have seen them either. If you haven't done the due dilligence then you have no businesses committing the club to this unkown venture whilst calling it fan ownership. There are plenty of fans including the largest supporters group questioning the venture. Surely that in itself should be enough for us all to take a step back and ask for more information befopre committing to the scheme.

This is not a time for guess work or assumptions based on positive mental attitudes. Factys are now crucial to whether we progress with this or not. If we don't get them then you have to ask yourself why.

[St. Sid]

Reading over the last few pages of posts really brings the sadness of an opportunity lost right home to me. If you check the Herald article out, and the continued stance by 10000 hours that the people putting the money into the Cic can't be trusted with the detail! It shows unfortunately what Sid would call a "Old Gramarians" society sitting in judgement and witholding genuine participation for their own ego and ends.

To give an interview in a national newspaper (herald) that ridicules your cack-handed attempts, and failures in communication, and in that inetrview to still insist that instead of asking questions and challenging the shameful way fans have been kept out of setting up this Cic. All pledgers should just "suck it and see" defies belief!

Suck it and see, they tried that at Ibrox, Livingston, Airdrie, Dundee, Motherwell etc, etc... So 10000 hours if you believe you'll be successful without genuine fan involvement, and calling your proposal a "Co-operative" when we now know it's not, good luck! Because that's probably the only way you can hope to succeed, by luck, sadly though not by fans judgement.

As always the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I have a lot of time for REA - I have been very impressed with him throughout the processes. I just think that the process has broken down to extent that people that were 100% behind the initial idea including SMISA to the tune of £50,000.00 of their own cash set aside for one goal to support the club. There were some fantastic social drivers for this project and I beleive that REA is 100% committed to those values. However, this has been undermined as various obstacles have had to be overcome. There is now a catch22 situation...the corporate bawbags need the fans to repay the debt that funds the venture that empowers them - however they want to strip the fan empowerment right down to the bare bones as they strive for control of decision making at the club.

REA has lost his social fund grant and is trying to spin plates with deals for the consortium, GLS and the 1877 Club coprorate bawbags to try and raise the finance required to complete. Fan empowerment is weakened as a result. I also think that the fan representation if there has been any has been very weak. They have allowed our empowerment to be stripped right down to being of little consequence. Now we are handed a deadline of do the deal of lose the opportunity. I am starting to conclude that the "opportunity" was traded away some time ago.

SMISA for me are the key to this. Once SMISA are comfortable with the scheme then I will support it again. As it stands I'm backing SMISA's stance and waiting until all the information is released to us. If that doesn;t happen then the "opportunity" is no longer what it was originally cracked up to be.

[ktf]

Div, this is the best post you have made in a while and it is bang on the money.

However, this now needs to be presented for what it is. I beleive that it is actually enough to progress so long as the number add up by a good safety margin.

The 52% shareholding is not quite as powerful as has been potrayed. However, it MAY still deliver what we want in terms of securing the future of the club for future generations. All the other salesy shite about community / one club / fan huddles in the members bar, needs to be set aside.

We now need an adult debate on the fundamentals of this - that is based on cold hard facts. At the heart of this is a pretty stiff number £1.5M (according to the latest article in the PDE). Let's not forget that when we were on the verge of going out of business on a month by month basis the debt was similar numbers. Could it all really have been solved with a £10-a-month increase in our season tickets and more debt purchased on the back of that?

If you strip away all the hoo-hah about the CIC....it is effectively fans signing up to fund £1.5Million worth of debt depending on how that figure has been reached - is it a negotiation with the consortium or is it removing the "donation" from GLS, inwhich case the figure is £1.7Million.

The non-exec Board gives away significant power from fan ownership for a fraction of the investment fans are making. The fan will actually be paying that money back with interest in the long run. So in reality we're getting completely f"k'd over in that particular deal.

The deferred payment to the consortium smacks of the fans monthly direct debits not being able to repay the debt - which maens there IS risk involved. The implications of that risk have been schmooj'd away with throw away comments and sweeping gestures with blah, blah...such as...then we'll be in the same position as we are now. Er, no I don't think that would be the case at all. Not paying back debt is never as easy as - ach, its just social funders - we'll just renegotiate it....have we got that agreement from the social funder? What does it say in their T&C's about actions they can take if we fail to repay the debt? How is the consortium's deferred payment going to work if we don't pay them. What are the T&C's? Then we have GLS telling us not to worry about defaulting on his debt...it looks like he has a permanent place on the BoD until the debt to him is repaid.

The opportunity is still worth pursuing - but we need to understand the risk beyond a few sweeping reassurance positive spin statements. No one is trying to derail anything - 10000 Hours and the consortium are trying to force this through within a given timescale, not the fans. The urgency to see detail has been driven by 10000 Hours not SMISA or the fans.

The secure future of the club is the critical factor here - not pushing the CIC over the finish line before fans are comfortable with the risk to the club.

Ah! At last, the Sid we know and love.

This is a great post and bang on the money. I still believe that the community/one town stuff can be achieved (partly because it probably has to be to appease the social funders, partly because there will hopefully be enough of us like-minded buds on board to put the pressure on to make it happen) but even if it isn't just now, that doesn't stop it being a great opportunity to secure the future of the club an make sure it is in safe hands for our kiddos.

[St. Sid]

Ah! At last, the Sid we know and love.

This is a great post and bang on the money. I still believe that the community/one town stuff can be achieved (partly because it probably has to be to appease the social funders, partly because there will hopefully be enough of us like-minded buds on board to put the pressure on to make it happen) but even if it isn't just now, that doesn't stop it being a great opportunity to secure the future of the club an make sure it is in safe hands for our kiddos.

Exactly.....the opportunity is still there.....it just needs to be proved to the fans. At the moment its a lot of blah, blah and no detail. I just got an email through asking for my HELP! with a really shitey closing strategy about there only being 9 days to make it happen. 10000 Hours can shove their deadline up their arse. If they do not provide the necessary detail and allow fans and fans groups time to review and make recommendations for improvements then they are onto plums.

The last thing the CIC needs is for fans to believe that it has been pushed through against their will.

[Guest somner9]

Exactly.....the opportunity is still there.....it just needs to be proved to the fans. At the moment its a lot of blah, blah and no detail. I just got an email through asking for my HELP! with a really shitey closing strategy about there only being 9 days to make it happen. 10000 Hours can shove their deadline up their arse. If they do not provide the necessary detail and allow fans and fans groups time to review and make recommendations for improvements then they are onto plums.

The last thing the CIC needs is for fans to believe that it has been pushed through against their will.

It's been our club for over 130 years, and come 10000 hours closing deadline guess what??? It'll still be our club come what may. Anyone that thinks they can take the fans money to buy themselves and friends privileged positions is on a hiding to nothing.

If it was about fan ownership how come the fans know bugger all about the detail, and have been sidestepped in the clamour to get a couple of corporate bawbags onto the board. all nicely done and dusted. I guess ReA etc have forgot this is Paisley.

[Stuart Dickson]

It's been our club for over 130 years, and come 10000 hours closing deadline guess what??? It'll still be our club come what may. Anyone that thinks they can take the fans money to buy themselves and friends privileged positions is on a hiding to nothing.

If it was about fan ownership how come the fans know bugger all about the detail, and have been sidestepped in the clamour to get a couple of corporate bawbags onto the board. all nicely done and dusted. I guess ReA etc have forgot this is Paisley.

Oh FFS. Sid talks about marketing bollocks from 10000hours and here's you showing that you've believed the marketing bollocks of previous club owners, that you've swallowed it, digested it and become it.

Currently the majority of the "fans" have absolutely no say in the decision making process. They have no membership of the football club. They don't have a vote on the AGM. And they own nothing of the club. If the club suddenly had a massive windfall they wouldn't get a share of it. If the 52% shareholding consortium decided they were going to asset strip the club, cancel SFA Membership and league registration there would be absolutely f**k all that the average St Mirren "fan" could do about it.

What the "fans" have been spoon fed by marketing bollocks is that by supporting the club - offering the club their custom - it is somehow their club. If that logic was sound Tesco's would be "my" supermarket, BP would be "my" petrol company, and Continental Airlines and Virgin are operating a fleet of "my" jets.

You do have a choice. You can continue to be a customer of St Mirren FC as has been the case for as long as you've supported the club, or you could look to something like what 10000hours is proposing which is an opportunity to become a full voting member of an organisation that will own a controlling stake in the club you support. It's a free choice, and you are perfectly entitled to make your choice, but don't be fooled by marketing shite. As a fan you are only a customer of the football club.

Edited June 5, 2012 by Stuart Dickson