Stuart Dickson Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Nope, I think we should bypass the vote and go straight to SG announcing our intention to vote no. If there is to be a vote then I would want to vote myself - I don't see why I should have to commit to £1.5Million of debt to do that. Ah....good old democracy Socialist style.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I am if the opinion that no matter what statement had been issued today that it would have been torn apart. Not necessarily....the statement could have announced that all the 1877 club and 87 club targets had not only been met but exceeded and that the CIC was going to proceed without any conditions on the offer. Why would that have been torn apart? What we got was a lot of bollox that has only added to the doubt already surrounding the CIC. You should at least concede that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Ah....good old democracy Socialist style.... Not up on my socialism; however I don't think they have a pay to vote system.....pretty sure the SNP will lobby for "favours" though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Not necessarily....the statement could have announced that all the 1877 club and 87 club targets had not only been met but exceeded and that the CIC was going to proceed without any conditions on the offer. Why would that have been torn apart? You would have found a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbain Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Not necessarily....the statement could have announced that all the 1877 club and 87 club targets had not only been met but exceeded and that the CIC was going to proceed without any conditions on the offer. Why would that have been torn apart? What we got was a lot of bollox that has only added to the doubt already surrounding the CIC. You should at least concede that. agree with you on this, just don't understand how we thought a decision on selling the club was going to happen until it was announced what was happening with the newco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reborn saint Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 The CIC bid conditions will be met and we will be able to fulfil the terms of our bid. Yes. As to whether that bid is then accepted ? That will be up to the 5 sellers to decide. Thanks Div....I know Sky will keep the deal for next season ...so CiC completes after 4th July... BOD have already accepted. Thanks for the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 it was right to postpone a decision on the cic bid, it should be clear whether there is any point in cic taking over the 52% share until it's known what it will be 52% of - a club on an even keel or a club facing financial trouble - the Bii input was always dependant on there being a continual revenue which would be significantly lower in terms of advertising and sponsorship when there are thousands worldwide who will stop watching spl games when their favourite team no longer features every second week, it's not just our own advertising revenue and sponsorship that will be affected it will be sky tvs' also and obviously the less they get the less they will want to put into the spl, they sell advertising according to viewing figures so their contribution to the spl pot will drop, therefore SMFC face a drop in both streams. we have to wait and find out how much of a drop it is going to be. As for a vote for cic members - consider this if as promised cic members get a view of the potential scenario finance wise they will know exactly what a no vote means ( regardless of what it means it has to be no) but they will then know the responsibility being put on them now and in the future, also if there is a significant amount of yes votes from cic members then we will know of the possible infiltration of blue people who have other agendas i.e. sign up rig the vote and withdraw d/debit, my suspicious mind working overtime i know , but it might partly explain the surge of pledges after it was announced that members could vote on newco proposal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 the BOD are not that far removed from the feelings of fans to know that we do not want to accept newco in to the spl, so why are they even asking cic members for their opinion when they already know the answer ? is it just to get hard evidence of the fans opinion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 the BOD are not that far removed from the feelings of fans to know that we do not want to accept newco in to the spl, so why are they even asking cic members for their opinion when they already know the answer ? is it just to get hard evidence of the fans opinion Because they are not just going to ask one question with a Yes or No answer. It isn't as simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kendo Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I am if the opinion that no matter what statement had been issued today that it would have been torn apart. Exactly correct, However some would have liked a statement saying, No to newco and we will buy the club even if it all goes tits up, let's all go down the tubes together. F*ck the newco nothing else in this world matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 it was right to postpone a decision on the cic bid, it should be clear whether there is any point in cic taking over the 52% share until it's known what it will be 52% of - a club on an even keel or a club facing financial trouble - the Bii input was always dependant on there being a continual revenue which would be significantly lower in terms of advertising and sponsorship when there are thousands worldwide who will stop watching spl games when their favourite team no longer features every second week, it's not just our own advertising revenue and sponsorship that will be affected it will be sky tvs' also and obviously the less they get the less they will want to put into the spl, they sell advertising according to viewing figures so their contribution to the spl pot will drop, therefore SMFC face a drop in both streams. we have to wait and find out how much of a drop it is going to be. Could have done with a few line breaks but agree with most of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) it was right to postpone a decision on the cic bid, it should be clear whether there is any point in cic taking over the 52% share until it's known what it will be 52% of - a club on an even keel or a club facing financial trouble - the Bii input was always dependant on there being a continual revenue which would be significantly lower in terms of advertising and sponsorship when there are thousands worldwide who will stop watching spl games when their favourite team no longer features every second week, it's not just our own advertising revenue and sponsorship that will be affected it will be sky tvs' also and obviously the less they get the less they will want to put into the spl, they sell advertising according to viewing figures so their contribution to the spl pot will drop, therefore SMFC face a drop in both streams. we have to wait and find out how much of a drop it is going to be. As for a vote for cic members - consider this if as promised cic members get a view of the potential scenario finance wise they will know exactly what a no vote means ( regardless of what it means it has to be no) but they will then know the responsibility being put on them now and in the future, also if there is a significant amount of yes votes from cic members then we will know of the possible infiltration of blue people who have other agendas i.e. sign up rig the vote and withdraw d/debit, my suspicious mind working overtime i know , but it might partly explain the surge of pledges after it was announced that members could vote on newco proposal Come off it Buddiecat. A few days ago there were people on here claiming St Mirren fans who didn't use the internet weren't aware of 10000hours and the need to sign up again for new DDM's, how the f**k do you think Rangers fans would have been paying any attention with all the shit storm that's going around their team at the moment. Edited June 22, 2012 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoWSaint Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 My main and laboured point is that the statement from 10000 Hours was not the best. It was a joint statement. It was not a statement from 10000hrs. They did not demand the BoD to listen to the members. The BoD invited 10000hrs to canvas their members because they are their preferred bidder and represent a very substantial percentage of the St Mirren support. All this has come from the selling consortium. Your anger should be aimed at them, not 10000hrs. The prospective members of 10000hrs are getting a sneak preview chance to see what it could be like to vote en mass on critical decisions before they have even committed a single penny. This is exactly what you were venting a spleen about about a month ago. Yet you continue to mump and moan. How can the BoD asking the fans opinion on something be a bad thing? And make no mistake, 10000hrs are fans. If you want your voice heard, feel free to join. That's what it's all about. Sitting on the outside and complaining because Stewart Gilmour didn't ask your opinion should show you exactly what 10000hrs is all about. It is widely known that every division of fans around the country would overwhelmingly vote no to newco so how you can twist todays statement to be a rallying call for fans to vote is yes is madness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoWSaint Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm sure Sky made a statement a few weeks ago saying that they had no intention of walking away from the SPL regardless of the rangers situation. It was on the bbc website. Sure, the deal could be reduced but they said that they will be here to honour their contract with or without the scumbags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Because they are not just going to ask one question with a Yes or No answer. It isn't as simple as that. ok they know the answer to the main question, so i'll await the the full questionaire details i guess there will be other questions on "will you - won't you, if and or when " e.g. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Come off it Buddiecat. A few days ago there were people on here claiming St Mirren fans who didn't use the internet weren't aware of 10000hours and the need to sign up again for new DDM's, how the f**k do you think Rangers fans would have been paying any attention with all the shit storm that's going around their team at the moment. like i said - just my suspicious mind, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 Could have done with a few line breaks but agree with most of that. ok i'll go back to school next term and finish off english exams, you do know i'll now be expecting perfect punctuation and grammar from yourself from now on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm sure Sky made a statement a few weeks ago saying that they had no intention of walking away from the SPL regardless of the rangers situation. It was on the bbc website. Sure, the deal could be reduced but they said that they will be here to honour their contract with or without the scumbags. Nah it was a Daily Mail story. They claimed to have the scoop on it. Whether you believe it or not I suppose would be down to your preference in newspapers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoWSaint Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 I'm sure Sky made a statement a few weeks ago saying that they had no intention of walking away from the SPL regardless of the rangers situation. It was on the bbc website. Sure, the deal could be reduced but they said that they will be here to honour their contract with or without the scumbags. Or an equally reliable source http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2160798/Rangers-crisis-Sky-wont-pull-plug-TV-deal.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 To counter the Daily Mail....this was in another great paper a week ago http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2012/06/15/revealed-sky-tv-threatened-spl-after-rangers-fans-cancelled-subscription-deals-86908-23896063/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reborn saint Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 To counter the Daily Mail....this was in another great paper a week ago http://www.dailyreco...86908-23896063/ Daily mail...lol.........Daily Record...ffs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted June 22, 2012 Report Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) The hearts supporting lorry driver pays 124/month for Sky? That's one hell of a porn bill, there's no way that illness is cancelling his "package" Sky know their customers like the back of their (hairy palmed) hand, they made their minds up months ago how they would react to every conceivable outcome Edited June 22, 2012 by beyond our ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 The hearts supporting lorry driver pays 124/month for Sky? That's one hell of a porn bill, there's no way that illness is cancelling his "package" Sky know their customers like the back of their (hairy palmed) hand, they made their minds up months ago how they would react to every conceivable outcome IIRC - I haven't checked - but I'm at £164 per month and there's not a porn channel in sight. Infact I don't subscribe to ESPN either. Just four HD boxes servicing TV's around the house. I won't be cancelling any subscription to Sky Sports though cause that's where I can watch my beloved Sunderland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bingboy Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 As a test case this proposed vote isn't inspiring me with confidence. We're not even being asked to make a decision, just to take a vote to help influence a decision. We've got people bitching about why they aren't getting a vote. A CIC vs Everyone else split is developing People assuming what the decision should be before the questions are even asked People slamming the fact that a question is being asked in the first place People making threats about what will happen if the vote doesn't go the way they want It's hardly a ringing endorsement of fan ownership and we've not even nearly got started. Lunatics running the asylum............. Div we have one guy on a crusade for whatever reason to bring this whole thing down. I've stayed out of all the 10000 Hours debate for long and weary but I don't see why we should all pander to Sid's demands. He is in a minority of, if not 1, then not very many. Ignore him, he's not worth bothering with. If you said black he'd say white. What I would say is this whole episode shows what a thankless task it will be for whatever "lucky" fan/(s) gets a place on the CIC board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 23, 2012 Report Share Posted June 23, 2012 Div we have one guy on a crusade for whatever reason to bring this whole thing down. I've stayed out of all the 10000 Hours debate for long and weary but I don't see why we should all pander to Sid's demands. He is in a minority of, if not 1, then not very many. Ignore him, he's not worth bothering with. If you said black he'd say white. What I would say is this whole episode shows what a thankless task it will be for whatever "lucky" fan/(s) gets a place on the CIC board. This is very true. The sad thing is that it is probably having the effect of putting off some talented and skilled individuals who would be ideal in the post from standing. They better hope that REA and GLS can keep them a seat in the Directors Box cause trying to sit with their mates and enjoy a game of football on a Saturday is going to be an absolute f**king nightmare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.