Joint Statement By 10000Hours And Selling Consortium

[reborn saint]

A better question might be .."We as a CiC which doesn't exist want YOU the fan to have a vote on a club that doesn't exist" ....Works for me lol...ps (100% CIC)

[St. Sid]

Not surprising Sid. Even allowing for a percentage of the 'No' vote simply being down to folk hating Rangers and wanting blood - it's patently wrong to allow any Newco club direct entry to the SPL, following administration and liquidation. Imagine this was any non-OF club. Bought players they couldn't otherwise afford using double-contracts (the SPL say Rangers have a prima facie case to answer in this regard), they also found a new owner who knowingly didn't pay tax or PAYE for 9 months, the SFA found them guilty of offences a baw' hair away from match fixing, the club took the SFA to court, and, and.....

There would be no vote, no debate, no discussion. Any other club in the same boat and their arse would be toast.

NO TO NEWCO.

Good man PozBaird.....if 10000 Hours wasn't a lot of bollox you'd have got my vote.

[pozbaird]

Good man PozBaird.....if 10000 Hours wasn't a lot of bollox you'd have got my vote.

Bollox or not is a debate I have no desire to take your bait on! Rangers Newco as a stand-alone issue is definitely bollox!

[St. Sid]

Bollox or not is a debate I have no desire to take your bait on! Rangers Newco as a stand-alone issue is definitely bollox!

Agreed....10000 Hours and the Newco should be very separate issues. The joint announcement about the vote and the conditional offer has muddied the debate that no CIC supporters are attempting to debate on - they have been reduced to blubbering.

100% with you on the newco being a decision that is straight forward.

On 10000 Hours we're left with half a story again. It is a shame that 10000 Hours supporters have been left with their dink in their hand yet again, no doubt gagged about what they can and can't say - if they actually know anything beyond the same old soundbites.

[pozbaird]

Agreed....10000 Hours and the Newco should be very separate issues. The joint announcement about the vote and the conditional offer has muddied the debate that no CIC supporters are attempting to debate on - they have been reduced to blubbering.

100% with you on the newco being a decision that is straight forward.

On 10000 Hours we're left with half a story again. It is a shame that 10000 Hours supporters have been left with their dink in their hand yet again, no doubt gagged about what they can and can't say - if they actually know anything beyond the same old soundbites.

As I said Sid - not taking the bait. Your position on everything to do with it seems to have done a U-turn, came round the roundabout, did a lap of the ring-road, and broke down on the hard shoulder. That's your perogative. I have no idea whatsoever if you are at the wind-up, have an agenda, have issues with individuals, or pretty much anything, so I'll keep well out of it.

[reborn saint]

The questions are now out

(1) How would you vote on Newco.?.....(No)

(2) If your club was to lose money due to Ran*ers being out the league ..how would you vote?.....(No)

(3) If this meant you lost all your best players.. how would you vote?....(No)

(4) If the club could not support itself without Ran*ers and would need to go into admin...how would you vote?...(NO)

(5) If the result of a no vote meant a plague of locusts decending on Paisley ...How would you vote?....(N0).".we will deal with them"

Is there anyway you will say yes?.......(N0)

Edited June 24, 2012 by reborn saint

[St. Sid]

(5) If the result of a no vote meant a plague of locusts decending on Paisley ...How would you vote?....(N0).".we will deal with them"

That's creepy - I just posted similar on the Employee thread.

[reborn saint]

That's creepy - I just posted similar on the Employee thread.

Great minds Sid...Oh wait!,,,your getting a doing on here.. lol......Relax It's only a forum

[Kendo]

Great minds Sid...Oh wait!,,,your getting a doing on here.. lol......Relax It's only a forum

Not in sid's eyes, he thinks he's winning.

I heard his favourite song was one dating back to the sixties it's called " Cathy's Clown".

[St. Sid]

As I said Sid - not taking the bait. Your position on everything to do with it seems to have done a U-turn, came round the roundabout, did a lap of the ring-road, and broke down on the hard shoulder. That's your perogative. I have no idea whatsoever if you are at the wind-up, have an agenda, have issues with individuals, or pretty much anything, so I'll keep well out of it.

It's not me that's done the u-turn though Paul...its 10000 Hours. What is being proposed now bares zero resemblence to to the original scheme. If it was still the original scheme with the £750,000.00 grant and a number of other backers, I would be defending it to the hilt. What we have now is a badly slung together bag of shite.

We have gone from having something that would have delivered so many positives for the club itself. Now we have a poorly financed scheme that has big question marks over it being able to support cashflow issues at St Mirren Football Club. At every twist and turn we have all been doing our best to give it the benefit of the doubt and believe the verbal reassurances. The outcome has been disappointment after disappointment. Even at the last twist, I was still hoping that 10000 Hours were just playing their cards close to their chest and that they would have the member clubs oversubscribed. Even when the news came that they fell short, I am sure we all thought it would be by 2 or 3 on the 1877 club and mibbae 10-15 on the 87 club. This was pitched to death as the way 10000 Hours was going to fill the funding gap left by the loss of the grant money and the other funders.

Surely even the most ardent 10000 Hours supporter must be looking at what is going on and thinking - what the f"k are these people doing? How many times are they going to promise great things are about to happen only to have to admit (eventually) to embarrassing failures? It is fairly harmless when they fail at the moment other than damaged reputations. We are now getting very close to these peoples decisions meaning life or death for the club - not my scaremongering - that's coming from 10000 Hours supporters.

This was the paltry information supplied on how 10000 Hours was going to be funded in their FAQs:

10000Hours have agreed deal in principle with the selling consortium to buy the majority shareholding for a total purchase price of £1.5 million over 3 years.

In order to fund this we will borrow £0.5m from a social investment fund with the remaining £1million coming from additional member subscriptions, turnover and the sale of Gordon Scott's shares.

The initial payment is funded based on the following numbers of subscribers;

• 750 x standard membership subscriptions at £10 per month (or an equivalent of £7.5k per month in member subscriptions) This in itself funds the £500,000 loan.
  
• 87 x 87 Club members each making £3000 lump sum payment.
  
• 9 x 1877 Non Executive board members each making £25,000 lump sum payment.
  

After 3 years the only outstanding borrowing should be the £500,000 loan from the social investment fund.

That will be paid off over an additional 5 years.

The pitch we've been getting is that if the numbers weren't reached then 10000 Hours would walk away. Why are they still trying to takeover the club when they haven't managed to meet the financial targets that they set themselves - and its their 3rd go at it?

[reborn saint]

Not in sid's eyes, he thinks he's winning.

I heard his favourite song was one dating back to the sixties it's called " Cathy's Clown".

Bit harsh Kendo......Temperatures are running high just now.

[St. Sid]

Not in sid's eyes, he thinks he's winning.

Nope, there's no winners in this kendo.....just an ill advised "punt" on the future of SMFC.

[div]

The pitch we've been getting is that if the numbers weren't reached then 10000 Hours would walk away. Why are they still trying to takeover the club when they haven't managed to meet the financial targets that they set themselves - and its their 3rd go at it?

You are such a negative person these days John, I'm really not sure what has happened to you.

The fact that we have failed to get sufficient sign ups in two categories is true, however you seem to have conveniently neglected the fact that we are now at 152% of projected individual memberships and still growing.

I'm not sure why you are ignoring that fact ? Well actually I am, it's because it doesn't fit with your thirst for failure !

The extra £4k per month in direct debits has been converted into lump sum payments, which generally speaking mean we have actually got the equivalent of the whole 1877 club signed up.So

So, we're still left a wee bit short, but we said all along we would bid what we could afford, and that is exactly what we have done.

This isn't a failure, it's been a great success. There has never been a St.Mirren supporters group that numbered anywhere near 1,000 members in my lifetime.

Spin it any way you like, there is a bid on the table from 10000hours and it has not been rejected.

[davidg]

You are such a negative person these days John, I'm really not sure what has happened to you.

It's easy Div.

When most were against the CIC, he was all for it with loads of easy suspects to bait. Now most are for the CIC he's against it.

He's a good fisherman, changes his bait with the conditions/ seasons.

[kpj]

BSkyB have reacted to supporter pressure by stating that they have never discussed pulling out of Scottish football.

With Rangers about to be liquidated there has been a regular flow of rumours that Sky will pull out of their contract with the SPL if they don’t have four Glasgow derby fixtures to screen.

Various SPL clubs, including Kilmarnock and Dundee United, have gone public with their concerns and fears about a drop in broadcasting income.

No proof has ever been displayed to say that Sky’s contract demands four derby fixtures a season but with fear of the post-Rangers era gripping some clubs a doomsday scenario has been given oxygen.

Supporters angry at the notion that Scottish football could be held hostage by Sky have bombarded the satellite broadcaster with their complaints.

On-line petitions have been started with Sky’s help team on twitter trying their best to avert a subscription boycott with Scottish football fans ready to cancel their £40/month payments if Sky pull the plug on the SPL.

Reacting to that threat Sky’s PR team are in today’s newspapers denying that they are about to ditch Scottish football.

A spokesman is quoted saying: “Sky has never, ever discussed pulling out of covering Scottish football.

“We have not discussed that possibility, either with the SPL or any other footballing authority. Nor has that been on the agenda for consideration within Sky, despite all the problems and difficulties being faced by Scottish football at present.

“If Rangers are not in the SPL, that would change things for us, naturally. It would leave a quality hole in Scotland’s top division.

Competition would deteriorate and, in that event, we would have to renegotiate.but let us be very clear we have always tried to be supportive of Scottish football and have never made any negative noises or sent any negative messages.

“Scottish football is still very much in our plans for the future. Walking away has never been on our agenda.

“We have, in the past, been asked for our opinions, but we believe that football should be run by the football authorities. We are a TV company.”

Last week Sky signed a three year extension to their contract with the English Premiership sharing the rights to live matches with BT.

With ESPN losing out the American based channel may turn to showing more Scottish football while BT will be looking for more than four live Premiership games per month to fill their schedule.

Celtic’s non-executive director Ian Livingston is the chief executive of BT and conducted the negotiations to secure the live Premiership rights.

http://videocelts.com/2012/06/blogs/sky-bow-to-punter-pressure-to-back-spl-deal

[div]

"A Sky spokesman said"

I genuinely do not think Sky will pull out but if Rangers aren't there they would be a bit bonkers not to at least re-negotiate the deal ?

[aldo_j]

Is it possible that if the Sky deal lessens overall that actually all the diddy teams would see an increase in revenue?

It's a bit late for this sort of shit tho, the maths can wait...!

[David Mc]

It's easy Div.

When most were against the CIC, he was all for it with loads of easy suspects to bait. Now most are for the CIC he's against it.

He's a good fisherman, changes his bait with the conditions/ seasons.

But I ask myself why would anyone be sad or mad enough to spend large parts of their day posting essentially the same thing interminably just to go fishing? It'would be a bit sad really.

[pod]

Is it possible that if the Sky deal lessens overall that actually all the diddy teams would see an increase in revenue?

It's a bit late for this sort of shit tho, the maths can wait...!

If their still on board,every possibility.

[davidg]

But I ask myself why would anyone be sad or mad enough to spend large parts of their day posting essentially the same thing interminably just to go fishing? It'would be a bit sad really.

He's made over 35000 posts on here.

[kpj]

"A Sky spokesman said"

I genuinely do not think Sky will pull out but if Rangers aren't there they would be a bit bonkers not to at least re-negotiate the deal ?

Undoubtedly, but I'm still rather sceptical about this 4 old firm game clause that is constantly mentioned in the media. Is it real, can the club verify it, and have you as an insider to the deal actually seen the contract (or is it publically available somewhere?) When it comes to statements made by chairmen and league officials it often seems like they doing a serious amount of bullshitting, although I don't doubt that there is a genuine threat of lost revenue.

Edited June 24, 2012 by kpj

[St. Sid]

You are such a negative person these days John, I'm really not sure what has happened to you.

The fact that we have failed to get sufficient sign ups in two categories is true, however you seem to have conveniently neglected the fact that we are now at 152% of projected individual memberships and still growing.

I'm not sure why you are ignoring that fact ? Well actually I am, it's because it doesn't fit with your thirst for failure !

The extra £4k per month in direct debits has been converted into lump sum payments, which generally speaking mean we have actually got the equivalent of the whole 1877 club signed up.So

So, we're still left a wee bit short, but we said all along we would bid what we could afford, and that is exactly what we have done.

This isn't a failure, it's been a great success. There has never been a St.Mirren supporters group that numbered anywhere near 1,000 members in my lifetime.

Spin it any way you like, there is a bid on the table from 10000hours and it has not been rejected.

Its the same old, same old div......10000 Hours fails to deliver....we get information drip fed....then the objection handling appears once 10000 Hours have rewritten their script. At the moment 10000 Hours are harmless as they are only wasting their own money and making a bawz of themselves with claims such as £750,000.00 of grant money being about to be signed off....£225,000.00 target for 1877 club memberships - a failure beyond anyones expectations.......the additional rank and file direct debits should have been a comfort zone for the debt repayment that the £7,500 per month didn't actually cover - now its being spun into a replacement for the failure to convert the "successful businessmen". Have you got any feedback on why the "successful businessmen" have rejected the 1877 offer? Have you got anything to feedback on why two out of the three targets have failed to be reached?

Or are you just going to shuffle away what appear to be failures as "negativity"? Are they not failures? Are they not pretty significant errors in judgement?

I have said many times that the support from fans is the one successful aspect of this - not just the recent support, but also in bursting targets on three occasions now only to be let down by the people responsible for sourcing the funding that the fans support makes possible. I'm not negative about fan ownership, I'm not negative about the fans response to the scaremongering and opportunism on exploiting the scumgers situation. I am negative about the capability of 10000 Hours to deliver a safe financial model to support fan ownership. They had more than one go at it now and failed - and if you remember the REA story, from memory they failed in that bid too.

I would love nothing more for this to go ahead, but only if there is minimal risk to the club. That is far from proven with further financial targets missed.

This was a great deal for the fans and the club when £750,000.00 of grant funding was coming into the deal.....now its 100% dependent on debt and fans subscriptions and even at that there's a shortfall in terms of servicing the debt based on the £600K figure mentioned previously.

Rather than trying to undermine what I believe are valid concerns why not outline how the new financial model based on converting the additional £4K is going to work. Is the £600K shortfall still there...with very littel take up on the 1877 club, how will the places on the SMFC BoD work - who is the sole 1877 member that appears to be getting an uncontested seat on the BoD?

Some fans have signed up to service £1.5Million of debt.......others will no doubt have to bail the CIC / club out of the resulting shite from an underfinanced takeover....why can't we be supplied with more information than a shit press statement?

Give me reason to be positive about this div......at the moment all I see is failures, selective information being supplied and a lot of scaremongering.

[Stuart Dickson]

Undoubtedly, but I'm still rather sceptical about this 4 old firm game clause that is constantly mentioned in the media. Is it real, can the club verify it, and have you as an insider to the deal actually seen the contract (or is it publically available somewhere?) When it comes to statements made by chairmen and league officials it often seems like they doing a serious amount of bullshitting, although I don't doubt that there is a genuine threat of lost revenue.

I am certain the more oft quoted clause would probably exist. It's been stated around the game that Sky and ESPN had a clause put in the contract allowing them to cancel the deal if either Rangers or Celtic, or both left the SPL to play in the English Leagues, or in some sort of Atlantic League. That is certainly plausible. How the clause is worded will be the basis of what would be legal or not I guess but I suspect since there is suddenly an attempt to extend the SPL to make it two divisions and newco going into SPL 2 is an attempt to ensure that clause isn't triggered.

[DXBBud]

"A Sky spokesman said"

I genuinely do not think Sky will pull out but if Rangers aren't there they would be a bit bonkers not to at least re-negotiate the deal ?

Someone either here or on P&B listed about a dozen lesser football leagues and minority sports that are shown by Sky. I can't see them walking away (unlike Whittaker, Naismith, Aluko & McCabe) but they would be mad to not use this as an opportunity to re-negotiate their deal. Even if Sky did walk away, you're not telling me that one of their competitors wouldn't come in with some sort of deal to take advantage of that opening, thus once again providing reduced (but not no) revenue to the clubs.

In all likelihood clubs' income from TV rights will reduce, but I don't see it disappearing completely.

[Stuart Dickson]

Someone either here or on P&B listed about a dozen lesser football leagues and minority sports that are shown by Sky. I can't see them walking away (unlike Whittaker, Naismith, Aluko & McCabe) but they would be mad to not use this as an opportunity to re-negotiate their deal. Even if Sky did walk away, you're not telling me that one of their competitors wouldn't come in with some sort of deal to take advantage of that opening, thus once again providing reduced (but not no) revenue to the clubs.

In all likelihood clubs' income from TV rights will reduce, but I don't see it disappearing completely.

You're probably right but it's an unknown factor and, to come back on topic, thats why I think 10000hours have been prudent to pause the deal until the uncertainty is lifted. I really can't understand why some fans have turned on 10000hours over the weekend for delivering a vote on Newco Rangers.