Joint Statement By 10000Hours And Selling Consortium

[St. Sid]

Issue 2 Sid - what if the conditions on the offer aren't that Sky pulling the plug is a deal breaker - just that it becomes a point to renegotiate the terms and the price since that would allow some of the 10000hours member subs to be used to prop up the team for a year until contracts can be renewed? Hypothetical, but surely it is something the buyers should be factoring in to their negotiations.

That's not what has been said though Stu. They are quite specific about it being about the risk of the club / CIC failing. The CIC has already admitted that it operate with just £100K in the "kitty" of cashflow issues for the club. The pertinent FAQ is below. GLS is telling us that no scumgers in the SPL will cost the club £500K...Div is telling us the club will go into administration within 4/5 months. I find it remarkable that no one is looking at these numbers and thinking RISK!!!!!!!

What happens if there is a cash flow problem within the football club and funds are required?

As reported in the Clubs accounts funds have been required to support the cash flow needs of the Club. This has been a max of £100,000 in the last two years. The cash flow forecast for the CIC ensures that it would have reserves of £100,000 should the need for such a requirement arise again.

[reborn saint]

As I have said already, St.Mirren voting no makes hee-haw difference to the problem we, the club and the selling consortium faces which is uncertainty over this seasons SPL revenues.

Until we know what Sky are doing we are treading water. That is the long and short of it.

I'm quite alarmed you aren't understanding this. I think if I had given my 8 year old son the information I've given you today he would have understood it.

As usual you are intent on playing games and damaging both the club and the CIC at the same time.

Ah.....Now we know....The problem is the £500,000 Bii funding. The BOD have accepted the deal but Bii won't commit unless Sky either honour the current deal or the reduction is minimal. When Sevco are officially told No then Sky will announce it's support for next season only on current terms...CiC will complete. I sympathise with Bii as if there is a chance of an Insolvency event then they must show they have taken steps to prevent losing all of their money.

Edited June 22, 2012 by reborn saint

[Stuart Dickson]

That's not what has been said though Stu. They are quite specific about it being about the risk of the club / CIC failing. The CIC has already admitted that it operate with just £100K in the "kitty" of cashflow issues for the club. The pertinent FAQ is below. GLS is telling us that no scumgers in the SPL will cost the club £500K...Div is telling us the club will go into administration within 4/5 months. I find it remarkable that no one is looking at these numbers and thinking RISK!!!!!!!

What happens if there is a cash flow problem within the football club and funds are required?

As reported in the Clubs accounts funds have been required to support the cash flow needs of the Club. This has been a max of £100,000 in the last two years. The cash flow forecast for the CIC ensures that it would have reserves of £100,000 should the need for such a requirement arise again.

I dunno SId. I know that at other CIC's members would be able to make a business decision to use profits from other divisions to prop up the ailing arm, or they could just cut it adrift. But you could just as easily ask the same question if the current BOD were in place. Just because they were willing to issue loans in the past won't mean they would be willing, or able, to deal with the kind of reduction in annual turnover that Gordon Scott has suggested will happen.

I have to say though Sid I think you are spinning round here desperately trying to get some sort of outrage going, but I'm not feeling it. The situation for the football club will be the same with or without 10000hours. Members who have been demanding that the board vote No will now, presumably, get the information required to make a proper adult and informed choice and even if there is an incredible earth shattering turn around in opinion at Paisley there's still fans of other clubs who are petitioning their board of directors hoping to be given the sort of vote that 10000hours members will get who may well vote to keep Newco Rangers out of the SPL.

I've stated my position several times. I would put the sporting integrity of the game before financial gain, St Mirren and even 10000hours. So my vote will be a pretty strong and loud "no". I'm not sure how the kids at WWW 98's would instruct me to vote with my other vote but I look forward to offering them their opportunity to have a say and to hopefully be listened to - especially since kids of their age will be most affected.

[St. Sid]

I dunno SId.

That's the question taken from the FAQ ya diddy.

[DLBud]

What I am not happy about is 10000 Hours starting to rally fans to vote YES.

Are you on some sort of medication?

That's, at least, half a dozen ridiculous statements you've made on this thread alone. You don't like the current situation?Yes, we get it and if you just made a sensible point without all your usual hyperbole then some people might just listen.

I assume the irony is lost on you that you accuse the CIC of scaremongering then post shite like above?

Take a break Sid, it beyond tedious now.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Anyone who feels excluded from the "No to Newco"vote needs to think about the position they are in.

Many fans of the SPL10 have made their thoughts know to the clubs they support in the hope of persuading the board and ultimately the Chairman to vote "No" when the time comes.

Here's the rub though. As far as St Mirren goes the board have said they will consult with the membership of the CIC as it will be them who will hold the majority shareholding in the club should the deal be completed. The board has not said they will be a proxy for the CIC, simply that they will consult; that is not the same as agree with.

That also does not mean that those Buddies that are not CIC members are considered any less of a fan of the club and they are at liberty to flood the Inbox of Mr Gilmour and other board members with their opinions on how to vote. However they have excluded themselves from being eligible to vote by not taking the opportunity to share in the ownership of the club. Need to buy a ticket if they want to enter the raffle.

How about fans who are current shareholders, will continue to be shareholders but whose opinion isnt being sought by the BoD who prefer to canvas opinion of fans who may end up being a very small part of a group with a majority shareholding.

[Stuart Dickson]

That's the question taken from the FAQ ya diddy.

I thought you were asking me. I just though "how the f**k am I supposed to know."

The point is the same though Sid. IMO there's been a lot of pie in the sky stuff on this website attempting to justify the losses and making claims about how fan numbers will increase and TV companies will pay more. It's always been the case that turnover would drop if you have a situation where you have an SPL without some form of Rangers. Even if Sky were to stay on and honour their current contract the value of the next one is going to be substantially lower - and I suggest that is possibly why there has been significant moves to ensure that Newco Rangers are only out of the SPL for one season. Losing a TV deal with an organisation like Sky would have further spin off effects whether you are talking about the value of track side advertising or sponsorship. It's a surety whether the club is owned by Gilmour, McAusland et al, or by 10000hours.

If you want the other side of the debate - which group would be better placed to handle the losses? Well 10000hours will be running business activities alongside the football club as part of the CIC group and they've stipulated that the MOU's are supposed to be designed to deliver benefit to all parties including St Mirren. Gilmour, McAusland and co have previously made short term loans to the club in the past to cover cash flow but they've always been certain of getting a return on their money. There is no guarantee that a reduction in turnover of £500k could ever be recovered just through the day to day trading of the football club.

I still can't see why you are creating such a fuss Sid. At least the members are going to get their vote.

[djchapsticks]

Rangers could shite gold bullions and in turn, donate them to every other SPL club's coffers.

The popular vote amongst the fans will still be a resounding 'No to Newco'.

[Stuart Dickson]

How about fans who are current shareholders, will continue to be shareholders but whose opinion isnt being sought by the BoD who prefer to canvas opinion of fans who may end up being a very small part of a group with a majority shareholding.

Tony - I don't know anything for a fact, but 10000hours have been pretty clear up to now on how the voting process for issues such as this would work. The vote would be put to the membership first. If a 75% majority exists then they would use their 52% block vote, if not then the other 48% come into the equation. If they aren't consulting shareholders first then its probably because we are seeing the delivery of exactly what Richard Atkinson and Gordon Scott had pledged.

[St. Sid]

I have to say though Sid I think you are spinning round here desperately trying to get some sort of outrage going, but I'm not feeling it.

Nah Bud, it is purely my own rage. My doubts have been growing all the time on the CIC. After CIC 1 disappeared it started to roll downhill, but even back then I had doubts as I stated many times whilst fending off the conspiracy theorists and CIC-knockers with personal agendas.

The niggles about the CIC were always there. It was when the group from SMiSA had a right good go in person - not online that I decided the niggles were worthy of further exploration. The press release about GLS was no great surprise - I had already been in a 10000 Hours meeting with him. When the press article came I decided to push the SMiSA questions. The lack of answers was disappointing and the niggles grew. However, you tend to hope that they are just niggles.

There's been far too many failures in the process for my liking. The failure to convince the funding bodies first time round was a pretty big tell. Then there was the big switch - from shareholders shares being worth nothing no matter who buys the club to it was always my intention to empower shareholders. The weakening of the structure of the CIC. Still pallatable though. SMiSA withdrawing their support.....isolation tactics used at the public meeting. Having to force the issue of seeing a draft constitution........requesting detailed information and getting vague FAQs instead...........the niggles grew to the point I wasn't comfortable. You still hope that the niggles are wrong....the 1877 club & 87 club sing up counters get hidden....the doubt about whether they'll be successful or not niggles - turns out those niggles were justified.......the £500K warning about a no vote in the FAQ example & then the PDE article.......all shuffled away as not being of concern.......now we find the 1877 club and 87 club failed....we find that the offer is now conditional....we find that 10000 Hours are going to be making an argument for keeping the newco in the SPL.......

No longer a niggle Stu.....my view is now that the whole thing is a shambles and should be knocked on the head. I would love to be proved wrong, but all I am seeing is people sweeping away some fairly chunky concerns just as SMiSA's questions were swept away and as far as I am aware never answered.

I now view the CIC as a gamble that could damage the club. Too many fans are signing up as it is worth a "punt" for a tenner-a-month. They are the only element of the entire process that has been successful - and yet they are the ones still with next to know information on it. With Bii sticking conditions on this going ahead shouldn't we get to know what the concerns are - and I would rather hear it straight from Bii - SMiSA kept asking why the funders never attended any meetings - I think its about time fans got to meet or at least hear from a group that could end up responsible for our fate.

[Guest TPAFKATS]

Tony - I don't know anything for a fact, but 10000hours have been pretty clear up to now on how the voting process for issues such as this would work. The vote would be put to the membership first. If a 75% majority exists then they would use their 52% block vote, if not then the other 48% come into the equation. If they aren't consulting shareholders first then its probably because we are seeing the delivery of exactly what Richard Atkinson and Gordon Scott had pledged.

Whoops - I wasnt having a go at the CiC.

Just to clarify I was responding to this from DXBBud:-

However they have excluded themselves from being eligible to vote by not taking the opportunity to share in the ownership of the club. Need to buy a ticket if they want to enter the raffle

[reborn saint]

I expected the statement today to say 10000hrs have completed the deal and the CiC will vote on Newco. To give the CiC a say on Newco is only PR for a deal which hangs on a Sky deal condition with Bii. If we let CiC vote then the no answer will be >90%....If we let the season ticket holders vote then the answer will be >90%.....If we let everyone who cares anything about our club and Scottish football then the answer will be >90%.. SG and the BOD know the result of ALL the fans so just tell us what the vote from the club will be. There really is NO need to ask any of us as you already KNOW the answer.

[St. Sid]

I thought you were asking me. I just though "how the f**k am I supposed to know."

The point is the same though Sid. IMO there's been a lot of pie in the sky stuff on this website attempting to justify the losses and making claims about how fan numbers will increase and TV companies will pay more. It's always been the case that turnover would drop if you have a situation where you have an SPL without some form of Rangers. Even if Sky were to stay on and honour their current contract the value of the next one is going to be substantially lower - and I suggest that is possibly why there has been significant moves to ensure that Newco Rangers are only out of the SPL for one season. Losing a TV deal with an organisation like Sky would have further spin off effects whether you are talking about the value of track side advertising or sponsorship. It's a surety whether the club is owned by Gilmour, McAusland et al, or by 10000hours.

If you want the other side of the debate - which group would be better placed to handle the losses? Well 10000hours will be running business activities alongside the football club as part of the CIC group and they've stipulated that the MOU's are supposed to be designed to deliver benefit to all parties including St Mirren. Gilmour, McAusland and co have previously made short term loans to the club in the past to cover cash flow but they've always been certain of getting a return on their money. There is no guarantee that a reduction in turnover of £500k could ever be recovered just through the day to day trading of the football club.

I still can't see why you are creating such a fuss Sid. At least the members are going to get their vote.

I am not disagreeing with you Stu. I actually do think there will be a hit for the SPL clubs in Year 1. Here's the thing...if fans have committed to £1.5Million of debt then where is our fallback position when it potentially goes wrong. Wouldn't it be better to start pumping the direct debit payments into SMiSA to build up a disaster fund to assist with cashflow in year 1. If the disaster doesn't happen then the CIC can go ahead - I would rather the CIC didn't as its been one bollox fairy tale after another.

The losses are in year 1, which means the supporters bar won't even be operational.....the CIC subsiduries won't start making money until further down the line and 10000 Hours have already admitted they will only have £100K in the kitty for cashflow issues - citing the last couple of years as that being the maximum that has been required.

We can debate it all night long - and I'm about to crack open some red wine so the rants might get worse - however it should be 10000 Hours (not Div) that explaining exactly what the f"k is going on rather than fans trying to work it out. We've had one shit statement that has caused concern not just in here but on the fishal site too....and one shit response with the usual bollox about pateince and we'll get all the information eventually. That's pish poor and I would be surprised at anyone that would argue that point.

[Stuart Dickson]

Nah Bud, it is purely my own rage. My doubts have been growing all the time on the CIC. After CIC 1 disappeared it started to roll downhill, but even back then I had doubts as I stated many times whilst fending off the conspiracy theorists and CIC-knockers with personal agendas.

The niggles about the CIC were always there. It was when the group from SMiSA had a right good go in person - not online that I decided the niggles were worthy of further exploration. The press release about GLS was no great surprise - I had already been in a 10000 Hours meeting with him. When the press article came I decided to push the SMiSA questions. The lack of answers was disappointing and the niggles grew. However, you tend to hope that they are just niggles.

There's been far too many failures in the process for my liking. The failure to convince the funding bodies first time round was a pretty big tell. Then there was the big switch - from shareholders shares being worth nothing no matter who buys the club to it was always my intention to empower shareholders. The weakening of the structure of the CIC. Still pallatable though. SMiSA withdrawing their support.....isolation tactics used at the public meeting. Having to force the issue of seeing a draft constitution........requesting detailed information and getting vague FAQs instead...........the niggles grew to the point I wasn't comfortable. You still hope that the niggles are wrong....the 1877 club & 87 club sing up counters get hidden....the doubt about whether they'll be successful or not niggles - turns out those niggles were justified.......the £500K warning about a no vote in the FAQ example & then the PDE article.......all shuffled away as not being of concern.......now we find the 1877 club and 87 club failed....we find that the offer is now conditional....we find that 10000 Hours are going to be making an argument for keeping the newco in the SPL.......

No longer a niggle Stu.....my view is now that the whole thing is a shambles and should be knocked on the head. I would love to be proved wrong, but all I am seeing is people sweeping away some fairly chunky concerns just as SMiSA's questions were swept away and as far as I am aware never answered.

I now view the CIC as a gamble that could damage the club. Too many fans are signing up as it is worth a "punt" for a tenner-a-month. They are the only element of the entire process that has been successful - and yet they are the ones still with next to know information on it. With Bii sticking conditions on this going ahead shouldn't we get to know what the concerns are - and I would rather hear it straight from Bii - SMiSA kept asking why the funders never attended any meetings - I think its about time fans got to meet or at least hear from a group that could end up responsible for our fate.

Fair do's Sid. I've had moments in the process where I've wavered too. I specifically wasn't happy at the move from CIC MkI to the Co-operative model. At that time I saw 10000hours going down a similar route to the Well Society in that it was producing something of interest to the fans.....but perhaps not so interesting to community types like me and if that was the case then I had to question why I would want to be involved in a Paisley co-operative when there was one much closer to home.

I remain confident and enthused by the CIC business model - not because I know that REA will be especially brilliant, but because I've seen what has been done elsewhere by people who I would regard as passionate but who are otherwise fairly unremarkable.

I can't get angry about the current developments though Sid. Why would I? Members are getting the vote they were promised, the sale of the club appears to have been put on hold until there is more clarity surrounding projected cash flow and the funder appears to be applying sensible lending criteria ensuring that the CIC is not over stretching itself.

[Stuart Dickson]

Whoops - I wasnt having a go at the CiC.

Just to clarify I was responding to this from DXBBud:-

However they have excluded themselves from being eligible to vote by not taking the opportunity to share in the ownership of the club. Need to buy a ticket if they want to enter the raffle

Ah sorry Tony - I didn't pick up on that.

[Stuart Dickson]

I am not disagreeing with you Stu. I actually do think there will be a hit for the SPL clubs in Year 1. Here's the thing...if fans have committed to £1.5Million of debt then where is our fallback position when it potentially goes wrong. Wouldn't it be better to start pumping the direct debit payments into SMiSA to build up a disaster fund to assist with cashflow in year 1. If the disaster doesn't happen then the CIC can go ahead - I would rather the CIC didn't as its been one bollox fairy tale after another.

The losses are in year 1, which means the supporters bar won't even be operational.....the CIC subsiduries won't start making money until further down the line and 10000 Hours have already admitted they will only have £100K in the kitty for cashflow issues - citing the last couple of years as that being the maximum that has been required.

We can debate it all night long - and I'm about to crack open some red wine so the rants might get worse - however it should be 10000 Hours (not Div) that explaining exactly what the f"k is going on rather than fans trying to work it out. We've had one shit statement that has caused concern not just in here but on the fishal site too....and one shit response with the usual bollox about pateince and we'll get all the information eventually. That's pish poor and I would be surprised at anyone that would argue that point.

No - no argument from me Sid. The statements are shite but then that's been a common trend through the last 13 years at St Mirren. Norrie Jamieson has done his best to fix some of the issues in recent years and he's made progress so far as the official website is concerned, but you still get stupid press releases from the board that say f**k all. I agree with you too on who should be on here answering the questions.

Perhaps the solution lies with a renegotiated settlement so that if Sky do withdraw from the contract, and a new TV deal cannot be agreed that the selling consortium would have to cede some of their initial payment. It would be fair after all because it would be their mis-mangement and poor reading of the situation of the Rangers crisis that will have led to the football club being over committed on playing contracts.

Time will tell but to be honest Sid I'm happy to let this play out and see what direction it goes in.

[bud77]

I started reading the posts on this forum and got fed up with people seeing as many conspiracies in the statement as there have been about newco over the last 4 months.

I read the statement simpy as ' We have agreed a deal but want to make everyone aware of the different scenarios depending on how Sky react to the vote on newco. We want everyone who is backing the CiC to be aware of the possible outcomes if sky walk away, drop the tv revenue to 25%, 50% or 75% and the possible loss of advertising revenues and reduced gates.'

This is really the first big test of the CiC, sitting on the outside it's easy to say no. Given the financial facts of how each scenario could affect the club, will it be so easy to say no ?

Some people on here have been demanding financial details from the CiC and how that affects the club before deciding whether to back it or not, now those same people are demanding a no vote on the newco without the financial facts and how that will affect the club. This is what running a football club is sometimes about, making tough decisions, sometimes going against the fans wishes and the people making those decisions need to be as informed as possible.

[St. Sid]

I can't get angry about the current developments though Sid. Why would I? Members are getting the vote they were promised, the sale of the club appears to have been put on hold until there is more clarity surrounding projected cash flow and the funder appears to be applying sensible lending criteria ensuring that the CIC is not over stretching itself.

Stu......it is the series of failures that is of concern. 10000 Hours are supposed to be adding some value to this process as was GLS. The big plan was to fund the sale using 87 club and 1877 club to fund the initial payments whilst deferring the rest to debt. It has failed to produce the numbers. These are the people that are being entrusted to deliver the CIC operations that will cover the £600K shortfall. Its the same people that led up the garden path with the £750K grant money and umpteen social funders only to be left with Bii who front loans for banks and now even they are wavering. That's a helluva lot of failures involved in getting to this point, which appears to be another failure in the making......one failure post deal and the implications are horrific.

[St. Sid]

I started reading the posts on this forum and got fed up with people seeing as many conspiracies in the statement as there have been about newco over the last 4 months.

I read the statement simpy as ' We have agreed a deal but want to make everyone aware of the different scenarios depending on how Sky react to the vote on newco. We want everyone who is backing the CiC to be aware of the possible outcomes if sky walk away, drop the tv revenue to 25%, 50% or 75% and the possible loss of advertising revenues and reduced gates.'

This is really the first big test of the CiC, sitting on the outside it's easy to say no. Given the financial facts of how each scenario could affect the club, will it be so easy to say no ?

Some people on here have been demanding financial details from the CiC and how that affects the club before deciding whether to back it or not, now those same people are demanding a no vote on the newco without the financial facts and how that will affect the club. This is what running a football club is sometimes about, making tough decisions, sometimes going against the fans wishes and the people making those decisions need to be as informed as possible.

I don't think that is the case at all. People are looking for more information and rightly so; however as usual it is left for the fans to try and guess the detail behind a bland and ambiguous statement as you have done. The one statement from 10000 Hours was basically about having patience and information would be made available at some point in the future. We've been hearing that pish for over two years now and we've still been supplied with nothing. We're now in a position where it is up to Bii to decide whether they fancy the gamble or not and they've had visibility of all the finances. If it folds they get control of the 52% shareholding - ALL of the risk is with the fans.

[Stuart Dickson]

I started reading the posts on this forum and got fed up with people seeing as many conspiracies in the statement as there have been about newco over the last 4 months.

I read the statement simpy as ' We have agreed a deal but want to make everyone aware of the different scenarios depending on how Sky react to the vote on newco. We want everyone who is backing the CiC to be aware of the possible outcomes if sky walk away, drop the tv revenue to 25%, 50% or 75% and the possible loss of advertising revenues and reduced gates.'

This is really the first big test of the CiC, sitting on the outside it's easy to say no. Given the financial facts of how each scenario could affect the club, will it be so easy to say no ?

Some people on here have been demanding financial details from the CiC and how that affects the club before deciding whether to back it or not, now those same people are demanding a no vote on the newco without the financial facts and how that will affect the club. This is what running a football club is sometimes about, making tough decisions, sometimes going against the fans wishes and the people making those decisions need to be as informed as possible.

Bud - it shouldn't be. Look in any other business environment companies have to listen to their customers or their businesses get damaged. I don't see why running a football club should be any different and I certainly don't see why they should ignore fans wishes, and more importantly the sporting principles that are crucial to the viability of the business world they operate in. Unfortunately SPL Chairmen have been corrupted by greed and self interest and its been spreading to fans for years too.

[reborn saint]

Stu......it is the series of failures that is of concern. 10000 Hours are supposed to be adding some value to this process as was GLS. The big plan was to fund the sale using 87 club and 1877 club to fund the initial payments whilst deferring the rest to debt. It has failed to produce the numbers. These are the people that are being entrusted to deliver the CIC operations that will cover the £600K shortfall. Its the same people that led up the garden path with the £750K grant money and umpteen social funders only to be left with Bii who front loans for banks and now even they are wavering. That's a helluva lot of failures involved in getting to this point, which appears to be another failure in the making......one failure post deal and the implications are horrific.

I'll leave you and Stu to rewrite war and peace ......I was looking back at some older posts today and "In out shake it all about" might be closer to home than you think Sid..lol....But the merry dance you lead with the Wishaw man is true genius!

[St. Sid]

Bud - it shouldn't be. Look in any other business environment companies have to listen to their customers or their businesses get damaged. I don't see why running a football club should be any different and I certainly don't see why they should ignore fans wishes, and more importantly the sporting principles that are crucial to the viability of the business world they operate in. Unfortunately SPL Chairmen have been corrupted by greed and self interest and its been spreading to fans for years too.

I really don't see how they can ignore fans issues on this one. If any club ignores the fans then they'll be very sorry come the new season. They might have breenjed a few season tickets, but I reckon this will be a "f"k you" too far for many supporters.

[Stuart Dickson]

Stu......it is the series of failures that is of concern. 10000 Hours are supposed to be adding some value to this process as was GLS. The big plan was to fund the sale using 87 club and 1877 club to fund the initial payments whilst deferring the rest to debt. It has failed to produce the numbers. These are the people that are being entrusted to deliver the CIC operations that will cover the £600K shortfall. Its the same people that led up the garden path with the £750K grant money and umpteen social funders only to be left with Bii who front loans for banks and now even they are wavering. That's a helluva lot of failures involved in getting to this point, which appears to be another failure in the making......one failure post deal and the implications are horrific.

I think the biggest problem for 10000hours would be to not deliver on it's promised made pre deal. One of those promises was to deliver this vote. They've done it - now i hope the provide the detail so that everyone can make a properly informed choice.

Sid I think there's going to be bumps and pot holes along the way. I'd be utterly amazed if there wasn't, and I'd be amazed if 10000hours got everything right from start to finish but right now it looks OK to me. They may have failed to get interest in the 77's and 87's but they promised they would submit a bid that was affordable yesterday and they've done that. I've got no reason to be angry......at least not just yet.

[Stuart Dickson]

I really don't see how they can ignore fans issues on this one. If any club ignores the fans then they'll be very sorry come the new season. They might have breenjed a few season tickets, but I reckon this will be a "f"k you" too far for many supporters.

Nah you've lost me again Sid. What are they ignoring fans on? There's a vote - the members will get their vote. It looks like it's working as promised.

[Eddy]

As Div pointed out earlier, there are terms built into contracts in case of relegation, what I would like to know is if everyone in the SPL signed upto the contract with Sky knowing the option of pulling out due to lack of old firm games was included, then why did no one at the club make sure these options were not carried forward to the players contacts?