Smisa Statement On Spl Rule Change

[div]

Noticed there that SMiSA have published another article on their website today.

From the outset of the CIC proposals being announced we have been led to believe that one of the strengths in the deal was the debt generated to fund the purchase would be held by the CIC and not St. Mirren FC therefore the club would not be at risk in any way.

We have been aware for some time that the introduction of tougher financial fair play rules being considered by the SPL would, in the event that a Parent Company of an SPL club suffers an insolvency event, such as entering administration, result in sanctions being applied to the SPL club in question.

We raised this with Richard Atkinson at the last public meeting on 19th April 2012 and we were disappointed although no longer surprised to learn he seemed unaware of the pending changes and potential impact this could have.

This ruling amongst other came into effect on Wednesday 30th May. The CIC proposal in our opinion does indeed create potential risk for our club more so as this model is untried and untested. Every situation at every club differs to some degree so comparisons are rarely fully applicable anyway.

It is such uncertain economic times when Scottish football is in state of meltdown that we find our football club (which has been to the edge of the cliff and hauled back from oblivion) debt free. We fully understand the Consortium's desire to stand down having carried out a fantastic shift for St.Mirren but clearly selling to this CIC will be a gamble and as supporters we have to question if the risk is worth it at this time.

[St. Sid]

Pretty much the way it played out at the meeting to be fair. REA delegated it to Chris Stewart I think to look into as he didn't have an immediate response to it. I would like to see us hang fire until all the dust settles - the SFA brought in new rules today relating to clubs being responsible for ensuring the ownership of their clubs is tickety-boo.

There is a lot of uncertainty on rules at the moment. Not a deal breaker, but we couldn't have picked a shittier time to sell the club.

[civilsaint]

Have to say the quality of SMISA's statements are pretty poor. Fortunately I doubt many SMFC fan s will read or even be aware of it.

[St. Sid]

Have to say the quality of SMISA's statements are pretty poor. Fortunately I doubt many SMFC fan s will read or even be aware of it.

Exactly....I was shocked to my boots at the last public meeting when a group of SMiSA fans started rattling off searching questions to REA. I think the entire room was taken by surprise - except REA & Div, who wasn't even there. That was the first I knew about an issue. Then I read their page in the match day programme and it was pretty much the repeated message about how fans should look into the detail of the CIC thoroughly. I was oblivious to their statements until TL and then Balfy linked to them on here.

B&WArmy appears to be the main battlefiled and to be fair there was barely a post on the CIC until recently as 10000 Hours were missing presumed dead.

[buddiecat]

pretty much what i thought SMISA's reason for pulling out was, they were set up to be of help to SMFC, putting their funds into a cic which under new financial rules poses a risk to the club - should the cic fold - means they could be contributing towards something that could harm the club,( i know any new owner can also pose the same risk ) so SMISA being set up as they are have decided they cannot be part of funding a risk.

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Have SMISA really pulled out? A while ago they said they were 'in principle' behind the CIC but it would be up to the SMISA members to vote on the proposal and decide if the £50k contribution to the CIC being mentioned would be given. We don't know if the Consortium will sell to the CIC yet and so at the moment SMISA's membership have no decision to make or vote to organise. If the 10000Hours bid is successful and they do get the majority shareholding then it is at that point that we will see whether SMISA and its members look at the proposals and take a vote and either back the CIC or pull out.

SMISA also have to surely accept that if any other bidder buys the majority shareholding at St Mirren then the most tax efficient and legal way to buy the club is to buy out using a parent company to hold the shares. When Craig Whyte bought Rangers for £1 the deal was done through one of his companies which got renamed as the parent company for Rangers and if Charles Green buys Rangers for £2 it will be done through the Serco company he set up a month or two back.

If another bidder buys St Mirren and uses a parent company to take ownership of the club then the problems SMISA are highlighting now about the CIC would apply to whoever takes over and uses a company as the vehicle to buy the club. The only way to not have any risk of a new parent company running SMFC and suffering an insolvency event is, i think, for SG and the consortium to never sell their shares. Any new ownership will have some risk attached... we know how RA and the CIC more or less plan to finance their bid and what numbers / level of support is required to make their bid viable. No other bidder has said who they are, what their plans for SMFC are or how they would fund buying the majority of the shares and how much money they have to invest in the club, whether they would continue to run the club aiming to break even or whether they would take a more speculative approach (and promise we can win a European trophy within 6 years by following a new more ambitious business model).

[St. Sid]

Have SMISA really pulled out? A while ago they said they were 'in principle' behind the CIC but it would be up to the SMISA members to vote on the proposal and decide if the £50k contribution to the CIC being mentioned would be given. We don't know if the Consortium will sell to the CIC yet and so at the moment SMISA's membership have no decision to make or vote to organise. If the 10000Hours bid is successful and they do get the majority shareholding then it is at that point that we will see whether SMISA and its members look at the proposals and take a vote and either back the CIC or pull out.

SMISA also have to surely accept that if any other bidder buys the majority shareholding at St Mirren then the most tax efficient and legal way to buy the club is to buy out using a parent company to hold the shares. When Craig Whyte bought Rangers for £1 the deal was done through one of his companies which got renamed as the parent company for Rangers and if Charles Green buys Rangers for £2 it will be done through the Serco company he set up a month or two back.

If another bidder buys St Mirren and uses a parent company to take ownership of the club then the problems SMISA are highlighting now about the CIC would apply to whoever takes over and uses a company as the vehicle to buy the club. The only way to not have any risk of a new parent company running SMFC and suffering an insolvency event is, i think, for SG and the consortium to never sell their shares. Any new ownership will have some risk attached... we know how RA and the CIC more or less plan to finance their bid and what numbers / level of support is required to make their bid viable. No other bidder has said who they are, what their plans for SMFC are or how they would fund buying the majority of the shares and how much money they have to invest in the club, whether they would continue to run the club aiming to break even or whether they would take a more speculative approach (and promise we can win a European trophy within 6 years by following a new more ambitious business model).

This post is built on major assumptions on what the other bids might actually be. It is pretty much word for word the pitch that REA gave at the meeting the other day and similar to the pitch we have heard in the past. Basically the argument is that the £1.5M CIC debt risk is going to be better than some imaginary debt from a bidder no one is prepared to name. We need to focus on the risk involved in the CIC and the implications for the club. Fans have a right to understand that risk so they can make an informed decision. Its the equivalent of a mugger telling you that he's just going to beat you up a little and you should give him all your stuff as there's another mugger around the corner and they might be carrying a knife. I'd rather people were left to judge the CIC and its risks on its own merits.

[Stuart Dickson]

What SMiSA seem to have ignored is that the debt problem isn't being caused by 10000hours. It is in fact being caused by the selling consortium. Gilmour and Co rightly took plaudits for clearing the St Mirren debt during the sale of Love Street, but their insistance on a £1.5m - £2m pay off for their 52% shareholding means that there has to be some way found to either raise that money, or finance that money - and financing that money will mean debt of some way shape or form. Instead of targeting REA and 10000hours for criticism they should be targeting the five members of the consortium for taking money out of the club for something that smaller shareholders are expected to gift away.

Edited June 9, 2012 by Stuart Dickson

[St. Sid]

What SMiSA seem to have ignored is that the debt problem isn't being caused by 10000hours. It is in fact being caused by the selling consortium. Gilmour and Co rightly took plaudits for clearing the St Mirren debt during the sale of Love Street, but their insistance on a £1.5m - £2m pay off for their 52% shareholding means that there has to be some way found to either raise that money, or finance that money - and financing that money will mean debt of some way shape or form. Instead of targeting REA and 10000hours for criticism they should be targeting the five members of the consortium for taking money out of the club for something that smaller shareholders are expected to gift away.

Another reason I am not getting involved at this point. The more we put in, the more the consortium will take out. The consortium getting cash didn't bother me too much. They've done will for us and I never believed for a second they would hold us to the £2M asking price. However, the combination of the deadline and the "we'll sell anyway" statement in the press has pretty much left of the the opinion f"k them. There is a further cost to be paid by fans further down the line to at least one other shareholder and potentially more. The consortium may have sold the stadium; however it wasn't really theirs to sell - it was the clubs - the fans suffered for that decision too. It was the right one - but to twist our arm with threats of selling the club to anyone for a £1.5M pay-off and slamming deadlines on it gives me the boak. The entire thing smacks of fan exploitation.

[Stuart Dickson]

Another reason I am not getting involved at this point. The more we put in, the more the consortium will take out. The consortium getting cash didn't bother me too much. They've done will for us and I never believed for a second they would hold us to the £2M asking price. However, the combination of the deadline and the "we'll sell anyway" statement in the press has pretty much left of the the opinion f"k them. There is a further cost to be paid by fans further down the line to at least one other shareholder and potentially more. The consortium may have sold the stadium; however it wasn't really theirs to sell - it was the clubs - the fans suffered for that decision too. It was the right one - but to twist our arm with threats of selling the club to anyone for a £1.5M pay-off and slamming deadlines on it gives me the boak. The entire thing smacks of fan exploitation.

Yet the fans still trust in Gilmour and hail him as a messiah. It's sad just how gullible St Mirren fans have been. Over at Motherwell John Boyle, who's taken years of stick from Motherwell fans, is giving his shares away. Back at Paisley and Teflon Stew uses the club as an ATM machine and St Mirren supporters queue up to post about how they trust him - and bizarrely a minority say it's Richard Atkinson who is the "snake oil salesman"

[saintnextlifetime]

Yet the fans still trust in Gilmour and hail him as a messiah. It's sad just how gullible St Mirren fans have been. Over at Motherwell John Boyle, who's taken years of stick from Motherwell fans, is giving his shares away. Back at Paisley and Teflon Stew uses the club as an ATM machine and St Mirren supporters queue up to post about how they trust him - and bizarrely a minority say it's Richard Atkinson who is the "snake oil salesman"

The sooner your vile, irrelevent, unwanted , anti-Saint Mirren, low toned opinion is removed form this site . the better for all concerned.. .

Hope this helps

[Stuart Dickson]

So it's now anti St Mirren to criticise a selling consortium within the club who are attempting to blackmail the St Mirren support into rushing to hand over £1.5m in cash using the threat that if the deal isn't concluded by Friday they will sell to possible "undesirables" who will most likely use a method of purchase that will leave St Mirren heavily in debt. A debt that will put St Mirren right back 13 years to square one, only this time without an asset that they can use to clear their debts.

Which one of the five are you?

[St. Sid]

So it's now anti St Mirren to criticise a selling consortium within the club who are attempting to blackmail the St Mirren support into rushing to hand over £1.5m in cash using the threat that if the deal isn't concluded by Friday they will sell to possible "undesirables" who will most likely use a method of purchase that will leave St Mirren heavily in debt. A debt that will put St Mirren right back 13 years to square one, only this time without an asset that they can use to clear their debts.

Which one of the five are you?

We're coming at it from opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to our view of the current BoD. However, I really struggle to see how anyone can defend the current behaviour. I also don't think 10000 Hours can get away with pointing the finger at the consortium for the deadline / blackmailing of fans - they milked the Herald article for all they were worth at the meeting last week. A massive lack of respect shown to the fans that have stuck with the BoD through the years of utter shite at SMFC. We played a significant part in allowing the guardians to keep the club going to. Now we have to fund their pay-off with £10 years + of debt.....fans already pay plenty to keep our club going.

[buddiecat]

We're coming at it from opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to our view of the current BoD. However, I really struggle to see how anyone can defend the current behaviour. I also don't think 10000 Hours can get away with pointing the finger at the consortium for the deadline / blackmailing of fans - they milked the Herald article for all they were worth at the meeting last week. A massive lack of respect shown to the fans that have stuck with the BoD through the years of utter shite at SMFC. We played a significant part in allowing the guardians to keep the club going to. Now we have to fund their pay-off with £10 years + of debt.....fans already pay plenty to keep our club going.

exactly sid , oh and the board members who kept us afloat did do a magnificent job, they risked their money but were paid it all back (with interest) when tesco bought the ground, what they are selling now are the shares they inherited, and some they bought themselves, i'm not against the bod but they have already been rewarded for their efforts and are now selling shares at a price way above their market value (if they get £1.5m for them)

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Since we sold the ground to Tesco it sounds like the BoD have still had to stump up significant sums of cash to deal with the annual cashflow issue after Christmas and before the SPL pay out the final prizemoney afterthe end of teh season.

Plenty of people wanted a deadline put on the CIC bid and now there is one.

FWIW I am sure that all the shit flying around with Rangers continued attempts to be allowed to continue to cheat without punishment* is a major factor in SG and the consortium deciding that almost 3 years after they put the club up for sale they do all want out by a set time and for a new team to be in place before the next transfer window opens.

* before they exit administration and before the SFA appeal panel has met again to decide about the transfer ban punishment the cheats are now appealing to get permission to sign players before they exit administration! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18385024 and also http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18378555

[Dibbles old paperboy]

This post is built on major assumptions on what the other bids might actually be. It is pretty much word for word the pitch that REA gave at the meeting the other day and similar to the pitch we have heard in the past. Basically the argument is that the £1.5M CIC debt risk is going to be better than some imaginary debt from a bidder no one is prepared to name. We need to focus on the risk involved in the CIC and the implications for the club. Fans have a right to understand that risk so they can make an informed decision. Its the equivalent of a mugger telling you that he's just going to beat you up a little and you should give him all your stuff as there's another mugger around the corner and they might be carrying a knife. I'd rather people were left to judge the CIC and its risks on its own merits.

... so is one of the other bidders going to pay with cash from their own persona;l account and pay all the extra tax by doing the deal this way rather than the 'tax efficient' way?

[St. Sid]

... so is one of the other bidders going to pay with cash from their own persona;l account and pay all the extra tax by doing the deal this way rather than the 'tax efficient' way?

DOP you can't even tell us who the bidders are let alone the nature of the bids - all we do know is that they are acceptable to the consortium who have confirmed in the press that they will only accept a bid that has the best interests of the club at heart.

There were very heavy hints that one was Angelo Massone who has already confirmed no bid made for St Mirren? Why has this not been reported - it took me two seconds to email Angelo who responded the same day. Why can't a professional journalist do the same?

[BLF]

I'm a member of smisa and have backed their position throughout this. But as it appears to be going through (and now appears to be in saints best interests, rather than an unknown/unnamed alternative) I feel smisa should be considering taking an 1877 option to both get another chunk of shares in the club and to ensure an exec-membership which will enable them to have an input on the CiC and the club at a reasonably senior level.

[David Mc]

I'm a member of smisa and have backed their position throughout this. But as it appears to be going through (and now appears to be in saints best interests, rather than an unknown/unnamed alternative) I feel smisa should be considering taking an 1877 option to both get another chunk of shares in the club and to ensure an exec-membership which will enable them to have an input on the CiC and the club at a reasonably senior level.

Same for me. I'm in England so pretty much impossible to get to any meetings. However, if the CIC bid goes through then I think it's time the two parties to put aside any frustrations, compromise as necessary and for SMISA to get on board. I must admit too that after a period - perhaps once the interim board has done its job - that the reason for SMISA's existence may no longer exist?

[St. Sid]

Same for me. I'm in England so pretty much impossible to get to any meetings. However, if the CIC bid goes through then I think it's time the two parties to put aside any frustrations, compromise as necessary and for SMISA to get on board. I must admit too that after a period - perhaps once the interim board has done its job - that the reason for SMISA's existence may no longer exist?

I'd say that the opposite is true. We will actually need an organisation like SMiSA more than ever. There issue could become their membership levels. However, they may need to reinvent their purpose but there is definitely a role for a group of fans to monitor the behaviours of 10000 Hours. I'd like to see them get more aggresive in terms of representing fans. An issue such as the disabled fans & carers ticket pricing should have been an issue that SMiSA were all over the top of.

At the meeting we saw Chris Stewart position himself with TL immediately after the meeting to discuss utilising some of SMiSA's articles in the CIC constitution. One of the key differences between SMiSA and 10000 Hours is that SMiSA openly invites the involvement of non-members in their organsiation. 10000 Hours are very specific about excluding non-members. That has been driven by their requirement to raise money and their commercially-minded backgrounds. Hopefully 10000 Hours will review their current "everything must have a price-tag" strategy.

[David Mc]

Agree on the price tag side from the point of the view that a way to include people unfortunate not to be able to afford £10 a month should be a priority. No question. The rest I think I'll leave you to you to argue.

FWIW I do know people who left SMISA because they felt it was developing into a clique. I haven't been as I'm 400 miles away so I don't know one way or the other. It is possible SMISA have some work to make what the constitution says a reality.

[buddiecat]

Same for me. I'm in England so pretty much impossible to get to any meetings. However, if the CIC bid goes through then I think it's time the two parties to put aside any frustrations, compromise as necessary and for SMISA to get on board. I must admit too that after a period - perhaps once the interim board has done its job - that the reason for SMISA's existence may no longer exist?

the reason for SMISAs' existence is saint mirren, and i would agree with sid that 10000hours being tracked by someone outside of its' membership will be needed,

[buddiecat]

I'd say that the opposite is true. We will actually need an organisation like SMiSA more than ever. There issue could become their membership levels. However, they may need to reinvent their purpose but there is definitely a role for a group of fans to monitor the behaviours of 10000 Hours. I'd like to see them get more aggresive in terms of representing fans. An issue such as the disabled fans & carers ticket pricing should have been an issue that SMiSA were all over the top of.

At the meeting we saw Chris Stewart position himself with TL immediately after the meeting to discuss utilising some of SMiSA's articles in the CIC constitution. One of the key differences between SMiSA and 10000 Hours is that SMiSA openly invites the involvement of non-members in their organsiation. 10000 Hours are very specific about excluding non-members. That has been driven by their requirement to raise money and their commercially-minded backgrounds. Hopefully 10000 Hours will review their current "everything must have a price-tag" strategy.

i agree with most of your post here sid but i would expect 10000hours to put a price tag on everything,because i would expect them to do all they can to clear their debt asap, personally i'm happier that they have less involvement in community projects that may take money from their coffers, it will help them stay afloat, i was actually tempted to sign up just so i could watch where the "expenses" were being spent, but decided that's me just being my usual suspicious self wanting to expose leeches, and would be the wrong type of reason to join

[buddiecat]

Some of the membership of SMiSA left when the Consortium would not sell any more shares to the fans after the Tesco purchase.

I suspect based on evidence placed on here that the same Consortium went on to buy more shares to eliminate GLS and KMG to get us to the position we are in now where they now hold the aces on the purchase price.

Too late to get a SMiSA members vote on what to do with the current £50k funds prior to the purchase. SMiSA already have a non exec position based on existing shareholding.

Personally as a member I'd have liked SMiSA funds to have been invested into the members bar to have a permanent reminder of what supporters are capable of doing which would help the club and the CiC move forward.

the consortium have in my opinion done all they can to feather their own nest - they are business people after all, but they have had too much influence on the cic procedure in my opinion, which is one reason i have not pledged to cic, the cic after they have agreed a price and purchased the 52% will be a different prospect for me to consider, but i'll leave my comments on that situation until after hopefully the 52% is secured by cic

[David Mc]

i agree with most of your post here sid but i would expect 10000hours to put a price tag on everything,because i would expect them to do all they can to clear their debt asap, personally i'm happier that they have less involvement in community projects that may take money from their coffers, it will help them stay afloat, i was actually tempted to sign up just so i could watch where the "expenses" were being spent, but decided that's me just being my usual suspicious self wanting to expose leeches, and would be the wrong type of reason to join

There are 100s of 'semi-sceptics' that have signed up who are v interested in making sure things are done right from a supporter's perspective. That's more than plenty IMO. It's up to fans to shape the CIC from within.