DXBBud Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 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. Stuart I couldn't agree more. I would be very surprised if the boards of the SPL clubs have not already been advised what options are on the table for discussion at the meeting later this week to give them time to discuss amongst their respective members and to enable them to formulate their positions in advance. There are so many variables in this whole mess that it makes sense to let at least some of them reach their natural end before jumping to conclusions or making decisions based upon outcomes that may never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I don't know how you can spin it like this (Prudent)? Are we to believe that neither 10000 hours or The Big Issue had even contemplated the financial future of a rangerless spl? Someone needs to start telling pledgers the full facts here, are you really insisting it was only at the meeting to put forward 10000 hours best bid that they, the sellers and Big Issue thought there may be a shortfall on income next season??? Sorry that dog ain't gonna hunt! This! until 10000 hours inform the people who have actually agreed to finance their drawn out bid, what? exactly is going on here! Are 10000 hours sticking to the line no one consider the implications of a rangerless spl until the bid was made last thursday??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Sorry I missed this post yesterday. Are we to believe that neither 10000 hours or The Big Issue had even contemplated the financial future of a rangerless spl? Nope. That is why it was clearly communicated to members throughout the process that the BII funding was dependent on clarity over SPL revenues. You can see this on slide 3 of the powerpoint presentation that was delivered at the last meeting and has been available for anyone to download at any time; http://www.10000hour...ntation0706.pdf Rangers not being in the SPL is irrelevant to our bid. It is the surrouding SPL revenues that we need clarity on. Although there is a clear link between the two they are mutually exclusive ie; Sky money remains even without Rangers Someone needs to start telling pledgers the full facts here, are you really insisting it was only at the meeting to put forward 10000 hours best bid that they, the sellers and Big Issue thought there may be a shortfall on income next season??? The deadline of 15th June (which in itself was an extension of the original deadline of 12th June) was given to us by the selling consortium, it was not a deadline of our choosing. The condition attached to the BII funding is not specifically that SPL revenues stay the same as they are now but that 10000Hours can prove that the club is a viable business. At the moment the board cannot give us the guarantee of that since they themselves don't know what is going to happen to a massive chunk of our revenue. I am guessing they wanted to set us a deadline purely because they were fed up waiting on this bid actually completing, maybe the other bid is more advanced than we think, maybe they wanted to see for certain what our numbers were behind the bid. I've no idea. The 10000Hours bid has been over complicated and difficult to understand at times, but this particular aspect is really very simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Sorry I missed this post yesterday. Nope. That is why it was clearly communicated to members throughout the process that the BII funding was dependent on clarity over SPL revenues. You can see this on slide 3 of the powerpoint presentation that was delivered at the last meeting and has been available for anyone to download at any time; http://www.10000hour...ntation0706.pdf Rangers not being in the SPL is irrelevant to our bid. It is the surrouding SPL revenues that we need clarity on. Although there is a clear link between the two they are mutually exclusive ie; Sky money remains even without Rangers The deadline of 15th June (which in itself was an extension of the original deadline of 12th June) was given to us by the selling consortium, it was not a deadline of our choosing. The condition attached to the BII funding is not specifically that SPL revenues stay the same as they are now but that 10000Hours can prove that the club is a viable business. At the moment the board cannot give us the guarantee of that since they themselves don't know what is going to happen to a massive chunk of our revenue. I am guessing they wanted to set us a deadline purely because they were fed up waiting on this bid actually completing, maybe the other bid is more advanced than we think, maybe they wanted to see for certain what our numbers were behind the bid. I've no idea. The 10000Hours bid has been over complicated and difficult to understand at times, but this particular aspect is really very simple. If it was "really very simple" why wasn't it communicated at the same time we were being beseeched to sign up for CiC membership before the deadline, otherwise a 'big nasty bloke' will buy the club? 10000 hours can't insist it was always an issue on one hand, but then completely fail to mention it (rangerless spl implication) when scaremongering people into membership. There was zero mention of this in the lead up to the bid deadline. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I'm no fan of the CIC but MadVlad only confirmed Hearts would be voting against Newco being allowed into the SPL last Thursday - it seems to me that events outwith the club have been moving swiftly & have overtaken the takeover. Having said that it seems that there is indeed a link between the club & the CIC's finances and maybe some of the concerns pooh-poohed previously should have been taken more seriously. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 10000 hours can't insist it was always an issue on one hand, but then completely fail to mention it (rangerless spl implication) when scaremongering people into membership. There was zero mention of this in the lead up to the bid deadline. Why? That is the point though, they did mention it. It has always been the case that the funding was dependent SPL Revenues. You say zero mention of it, even though I showed you the presentation that clearly mentions it which was shown to members on June 7th and has been available to view on the 10000Hours website ever since. So to summarise; You say 10000Hours didn't tell anyone I say they did, and provide evidence to back that up You respond by saying 10000Hours didn't tell anyone These are the sort of circular arguments that are draining the life out of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I'm no fan of the CIC but MadVlad only confirmed Hearts would be voting against Newco being allowed into the SPL last Thursday - it seems to me that events outwith the club have been moving swiftly & have overtaken the takeover. Having said that it seems that there is indeed a link between the club & the CIC's finances and maybe some of the concerns pooh-poohed previously should have been taken more seriously. Point well made! All the waffle about one entity not affecting the other and steadfast refusal to accept anything to the counter was a crass and amateurish attempt at shouting down anyone that challenged it. One of the very principals 10000 hours attached to their bid, and communicated to all and sundry as a reason that the club would be safer in their hands, is now in fact the very reason why they cannot proceed! if they'd come clean at the outset then maybe they'd have sold a few corporate packages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud the Baker Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Having said that it seems that there is indeed a link between the club & the CIC's finances and maybe some of the concerns pooh-poohed previously should have been taken more seriously. Doesn't really matter, we have covered the shortfall there by the additional individual direct debits we have received. We are nett short in the 87 club only, which is why we tabled a reduced offer. We believe that the 1877 club (and the 87 for that matter) takeup will be slower to take up than we originally envisaged, thems the breaks, sometimes in life we all make mistakes. Simples ! Last year £2M was the price that the BoD wouldn't go under, in April it was £1.75M, by May £1.5M, now you're saying a reduced bid has been tabled. Like I said questions remain, like did the CIC get the best price it could? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 That is the point though, they did mention it. It has always been the case that the funding was dependent SPL Revenues. You say zero mention of it, even though I showed you the presentation that clearly mentions it which was shown to members on June 7th and has been available to view on the 10000Hours website ever since. So to summarise; You say 10000Hours didn't tell anyone I say they did, and provide evidence to back that up You respond by saying 10000Hours didn't tell anyone These are the sort of circular arguments that are draining the life out of me. I didn't see it in any of the "Sign up now or we die" communications leading up to the bid, did anyone else? You say there is mention of it on slides etc, ok don't dispute that, but why if it was always such a deal breaker was it not part of all the big push for last minute membership? On a different note: now that it seems clear there is little to no take up on the £25k mega-memberships, does this mean that GLS's automatic board position is now untenable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 On a different note: now that it seems clear there is little to no take up on the £25k mega-memberships, does this mean that GLS's automatic board position is now untenable? If by "automatic" you mean "interim" then I wouldn't think so. I would think having a previous director on the interim board would be a pretty sensible thing to do myself, but that's just my opinion. As a prospective member yourself I hope you will be putting yourself forward for one of the three initial members of the CIC board ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 If by "automatic" you mean "interim" then I wouldn't think so. I would think having a previous director on the interim board would be a pretty sensible thing to do myself, but that's just my opinion. As a prospective member yourself I hope you will be putting yourself forward for one of the three initial members of the CIC board ? Automatic/Interim (same thing). that said, GLS parachuted into 10000 hours at the last minute having previoulsy expressed a view that it wasn't the answer. His contribution to the party was a slice of shares that would be divided up and sold in chunks to generate the funds needed to fill the gap in upfront payment to the selling consortium. Now as far as we know very little of that upfront revenue has been generated, and presumably as things stand the CiC is still committed to paying back GLS for these shares in the future? in light of that shouldn't he be seeking election rather than succession??? If the good peeps of the Cic see the merit in having a previous director on the Bod then they''ll surely be happy to vote for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 The "interim" tag is nonsense. REA and GLS have been presented as being on the Board for as long as Bii want them to be there. There is no interim period. They are effectively the bankers representatives on the BoD. However, that really isn't that big a deal at the moment. The big concern is around the finances and the risk to SMFC. 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.