St Mirren Employees & 10000 Hours

[div]

You say you can't see where it might have come from and then highlight where it might have come from. LOL.

We MIGHT have been in the 1st division. MIGHT. But we would have been run properly.

We ARE in financial shit now though. ARE. And we have no way out of it other than hardship as a direct result of not having that fund.

BTW maybe a better source would be to have cut back on just one of those types of player each year since the Setanta deal and save the money.

Do you not agree that would have been a better compromise between 1st division football and the situation we are in now?

I see where you are coming from but at the end of the day if we had been sat there with a few hundred K in the bank and been relegated then I don't think the majority of the fans would have shared the moral glee to be honest.

[colinorr]

The current squad of players with the exception of Sam Parkin all signed contracts with St.Mirren last summer. All these players are under contract until the end of season 2012-2013.

Nobody could have predicted the current situation coming to pass this time last year.

Div, I sympathise with your position and don't believe you deserve the stick you've been taking on here in the past 24 hours. But the statement above isn't true..

I count nine players (DVZ, Mair, Barron, McGregor, Goodwin, Imrie, Guy, Robertson and Parkin) who have either been signed or given new contracts in 2012, at a time where it was widely known that Rangers were in serious difficulty and that them going out of business was a possibility.

Even last summer, there were online sources such as Rangers Tax Case saying Rangers could go bust, although I will admit I was one of many who didn't think it would actually happen. So I wouldn't criticise them for signing guys on two-year a year ago.

But when our board was extending the contracts of players in the past few months I wondered if it was the right thing to do given the Rangers situation. I assumed they either were certain Rangers would still be in the league or knew they could handle the spending if not.

Now it looks like they should have held back until they knew what their income for 2012/3 was going to be. If those players had gone elsewhere, so be it.

[St. Sid]

I think I see were Oaksoft is coming from. We had a surplus from the ground move and appear to have spunked it all and went back to running on the brink. We could have held back some of the windfall to help manage events like SKY pulling the plug. It sounds a bit like what Well Society are doing, and what somner9 has been banging on about for a while. Essentially an emergency kitty to ensure the long term survival of the club.

Despite all the soundbites about 10000 hours delivering a secure future of the club the statement appears to be telling us that their funders do not believe this to be the case.

[oaksoft]

Unfortunately that is the way football clubs work and in fact most businesses work the same way.

Other than with season tickets pretty much everything is paid in arrears or in installments.

You are living in cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid if you think St.Mirren should be sitting with a few hundred thousand in the bank waiting for a rainy day.

Cloud cuckoo land? Maybe. I'm not the one in charge of a business that is now financially in the shit though as a direct result of not having that fund am I?

[div]

I count nine players (DVZ, Mair, Barron, McGregor, Goodwin, Imrie, Guy, Robertson and Parkin) who have either been signed or given new contracts in 2012, at a time where it was widely known that Rangers were in serious difficulty and that them going out of business was a possibility.

Even last summer, there were online sources such as Rangers Tax Case saying Rangers could go bust, although I will admit I was one of many who didn't think it would actually happen. So I wouldn't criticise them for signing guys on two-year a year ago.

But when our board was extending the contracts of players in the past few months I wondered if it was the right thing to do given the Rangers situation. I assumed they either were certain Rangers would still be in the league or knew they could handle the spending if not.

Now it looks like they should have held back until they knew what their income for 2012/3 was going to be. If those players had gone elsewhere, so be it.

Yip that is a decent post Colin, and a lot of truth in that. I still don't think many could have predicted liquidation as being the most likely outcome but absolutely accept what you are saying above.

[sally02]

Sorry but that is total bollox.

If you spend what you don't have then it's financial mismanagement.

From you! The Sky Contact is still in place, it is a sale of goods from the clubs in the SPL to Sky, therefore is turnover income budgeted for as any other business would do - only when the contract does not exist do things change. You are intimating that all SPL boards should have excluded it from their income projections even although the contract is still live until SKY make a move to cancel, alter or indicate they will support Scottish Football through this mess.

[div]

Cloud cuckoo land? Maybe. I'm not the one in charge of a business that is now financially in the shit though as a direct result of not having that fund am I?

True, although that fund hasn't actually gone, we are only speculating on worst case scenrio here.

I think chances of Sky walking are very slim, a renegotiation is much more likely, hopefully nothing will happen at all and we can just get on and enjoy life without one half of the poison in our league !

[oaksoft]

I see where you are coming from but at the end of the day if we had been sat there with a few hundred K in the bank and been relegated then I don't think the majority of the fans would have shared the moral glee to be honest.

I'm sure you are right but most fans are numpties and there would have been no glee at all. Just huge relief.

You're making assumptions again that relegation would be inevitable if we had kept a rainy day fund.

I'm saying that not signing just a single player per year would have built up a fund over time.

BUT if you want the club to trade its tits off each year leaving NO room for any error whatsoever then this is what you risk ending up with.

[oaksoft]

True, although that fund hasn't actually gone, we are only speculating on worst case scenrio here.

I think chances of Sky walking are very slim, a renegotiation is much more likely, hopefully nothing will happen at all and we can just get on and enjoy life without one half of the poison in our league !

I agree about Sky but we MUST get this sorted moving forwards IMO.

I hope we never have to face this nonsense again.

We've known for years that both halves of the OF want out and Sky would then disappear.

We must get our house in order now to protect against that likelihood.

Maybe we will.

[oaksoft]

From you! The Sky Contact is still in place, it is a sale of goods from the clubs in the SPL to Sky, therefore is turnover income budgeted for as any other business would do - only when the contract does not exist do things change. You are intimating that all SPL boards should have excluded it from their income projections even although the contract is still live until SKY make a move to cancel, alter or indicate they will support Scottish Football through this mess.

That's not what I said.

I can't debate something if you are not even going to bother to read what I invested a considerable amount of my not insignificant intellect writing.

[Ally]

I'm sure you are right but most fans are numpties and there would have been no glee at all. Just huge relief.

You're making assumptions again that relegation would be inevitable if we had kept a rainy day fund.

I'm saying that not signing just a single player per year would have built up a fund over time.

BUT if you want the club to trade its tits off each year leaving NO room for any error whatsoever then this is what you risk ending up with.

That's unfair on the BOD. They haven't "traded the tits off" each year in the slightest.

[sally02]

That's not what I said.

I can't debate something if you are not even going to bother to read what I invested a considerable amount of my not insignificant intellect arrogant writing.

Sorted it for you!

Edited June 23, 2012 by sally02

[Ally]

We've known for years that both halves of the OF want out and Sky would then disappear.

We must get our house in order now to protect against that likelihood.

Maybe we will.

If the Old Firm were to leave Scottish Football then it would most likely be over a projected time period... which you would then budget for. I'm not sure when the present SKY deal runs out, but an exit from Scottish Football would NOT be sanctioned by the SFA/FA/UEFA if they just "upped sticks", resulting in the other clubs being forced into administration. The idea that the OF could pick and choose where to play, within the course of a single season, is just fanciful...

The Sky deal having the clause that it's dependent on the OF being involved is not ideal. However if it's such a sticking point for SKY, which it is, would you expect the other SPL clubs to refuse to sign it and be forced into accepting a much reduced deal... in what was a highly unlikely scenario in the first place? I wouldn't.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Ally

[St. Sid]

........we are only speculating on worst case scenrio here.

aka...scaremongering.

[St. Sid]

Now that We are on The Subject of Scaremongering - What's The Chance of geting The Actual Figures on The £ 25k 1877 Club & £ 3k 1877 memberships ? Do We have 1000 Fans signed up To this CIC ?

It'll only open up even more questions.

Why did "successful businessmen" knock back 10000 Hours?

Why have Paisley's SMB community knock back 10000 Hours? (the only 87 club members I know have signed up are individuals not businesses - it would be good to see that breakdown)

Have 10000 Hours gambled and made an offer that includes future memberships that don't exist yet?

Has the consortium just accepted whatever they could get from 10000 Hours raising some VERY big questions about the existence of the two mystery foreign bidders?

[bud77]

Sorry but that is total bollox.

If you spend what you don't have then it's financial mismanagement.

Then surely that financial mismanagement is something that should be aimed at the current board and not 1000hours ?

And pesumably if the 10000hours members decide to budget for the season after next without any Sky income you will acept the reductionin playing standards and not question it ?

[St. Sid]

Then surely that financial mismanagement is something that should be aimed at the current board and not 1000hours ?

And pesumably if the 10000hours members decide to budget for the season after next without any Sky income you will acept the reductionin playing standards and not question it ?

Pretty sure that's were Oaksoft was directing his comments. However, it does ask a pretty big question and Bii don't appear to like the answer. How does 10000 hours manage a cashflow issue at SMFC?

We've always been told that the club would be safe as there is no charge on the assets. And yet here we are with a big question mark from Bii about whether it can manage the scumgers situation. The implications of the large scale reconstruction will not be understood within three weeks. Time to knock this on the head.

[reborn saint]

Pretty sure that's were Oaksoft was directing his comments. However, it does ask a pretty big question and Bii don't appear to like the answer. How does 10000 hours manage a cashflow issue at SMFC?

We've always been told that the club would be safe as there is no charge on the assets. And yet here we are with a big question mark from Bii about whether it can manage the scumgers situation. The implications of the large scale reconstruction will not be understood within three weeks. Time to knock this on the head.

I think it's now safe to say that Bii will make the call on our CiC...ie if they say yes we go and if no It's dead. £500,000 is alot of money and It will be up to them now.

[gbain]

Now that We are on The Subject of Scaremongering - What's The Chance of geting The Actual Figures on The £ 25k 1877 Club & £ 3k 1877 memberships ? Do We have 1000 Fans signed up To this CIC ?

exactly, we have asked numerous times for actual figures, but never get any answers, plenty of reminders on the £10 a month membership numbers and how great this is, we need to put all this tiresome nonsense to bed and just wish we would just be told the truth, I'm sure there are many fans out there thinking this is just one total mess at present and doesn't exactly fill you with confidence.

[Kendo]

Let's clarify this again. It seems you have misunderstood what was said and have conveniently ignored the previous two dozen explanations I have given.

I will make this as simple as possible for you John and you can tell me which bits you disagree with.

60% of the current revenue which comes into St.Mirren comes in the form of Television and SPL sponsorship money.

Sky have a termination clause in their contract which they can exercise if either Rangers or Celtic cease to be in the SPL.

Rangers membership of the SPL is the subject of a club vote on 4th July.

It is widely anticpated that they will not be voted back into the SPL. And rightly so in my personal opinion.

This then means Sky COULD, POSSIBLY terminate the current television deal.

IF that happend, IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF it happened, then St.Mirren would be in serious trouble.

We have a wage bill for this season that is budgeted based on the TV and Sponsorship money being there.

If it is not there we have a problem. We will be spending more money than is coming in.

We cannot borrow money to bridge that gap, as nobody will lend us it.

This is an IF scenario. I did not say the club would go into administration if Rangers were voted into the SPL. I have NEVER said that.

If you cannot comprehend the above then I cannot help you any more. It's simple common sense and whilst it can be argued that is unlikely to happen the truth of the matter is that it IS possible and it COULD happen. For that reason it is not prudent for us or the club to close the deal and take over the running of the club, nor is it financially possible as the funder will not, for obvious reasons, lend us money to buy a business that COULD be in such serious trouble in just a few months time.

This is ALL about IF's, it is is ALL about speculating how we would deal with various scenarios that unfold.

Excellent stuff, div makes it all as clear as a bell.

The thing is that it also clarifies that if Sky do pull the plug then every team in the SPL would go bust. For that reason I cannot see Sky pull out, the negative publicity would damage their reputation.

The professional critics on here are incredible, people like yourself have stepped up to the mark and done what you believe to be in the best interests for Saint Mirren, what thanks have you got .................... Stuff like stick the CIC your ass etc etc. makes me angry.

If people on here think they can do better then put forward your plans, stop running down the very people working their butts off and have put their own 3k worth in.

I remain sceptical of the CIC, however I have joined it and I admire the efforts that have gone in to try and make it work, give div a break FFS.

Edited June 23, 2012 by Kendo

[div]

Have You Got 1000 members yet CIC ?

Yes.

[gbain]

Big Issue = Debt, Debt, Debt - 10,000 Hours = Debt, Debt, Debt ? How many members have YOU got for your 87 Club @ £ 3k ? How many members Have YOU got for your 1887 Club @ £ 25k ? Have You Got 1000 members yet CIC ?

Dick, agree with you on asking for numbers, I have put my name forward for the 87 club, but must be honest having second thoughts due to lack of information on numbers, here is another scenario, if the cic goes in with a lower purchase price to buy the club and this is accepted, then surely to get more fans onto the 87 club, then a revised membership fee could be looked at, it's obviously not worked on the £3000 cost, so why not drop this to £1500 and see if this can increase numbers, you never know it may sway some of the £10 a month members over to the 87 club.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

It'll only open up even more questions.

Why did "successful businessmen" knock back 10000 Hours?

Why have Paisley's SMB community knock back 10000 Hours? (the only 87 club members I know have signed up are individuals not businesses - it would be good to see that breakdown)

Have 10000 Hours gambled and made an offer that includes future memberships that don't exist yet?

Has the consortium just accepted whatever they could get from 10000 Hours raising some VERY big questions about the existence of the two mystery foreign bidders?

Sid your like Sumner9 only on speed is that what your using your tenners for tut tut ! !

Jokes aside we know your stance give it a rest. From what has been written by Div the take over is very much on.

[div]

There are 982 individuals signed up, generating £11425 in monthly subs.

I don't have the up to date numbers on the other two categories but towards the end of last week we had roughly;

40 x 87 Club members fully signed up

1 x 1877 Memberships sold

We were able to monetise the £4k per month over subscription we have in direct debits which basically equated to the 1877 club being fully subscribed.

That is where we are.

It has proven to be very difficult in this climate to persuade local businesses, individuals and organisations to part with £3k, much less £25k.

Maybe the targets were over ambitious, maybe the packages aren't right, but it's all pretty moot as the over subscription of individual members actually allowed us to make up most, if not all, of the difference.

We made a very fair and credible offer on Thursday, and crucially one that we could afford.

[Drew]

There are 982 individuals signed up, generating £11425 in monthly subs.

I don't have the up to date numbers on the other two categories but towards the end of last week we had roughly;

40 x 87 Club members fully signed up

1 x 1877 Memberships sold

We were able to monetise the £4k per month over subscription we have in direct debits which basically equated to the 1877 club being fully subscribed.

That is where we are.

It has proven to be very difficult in this climate to persuade local businesses, individuals and organisations to part with £3k, much less £25k.

Maybe the targets were over ambitious, maybe the packages aren't right, but it's all pretty moot as the over subscription of individual members actually allowed us to make up most, if not all, of the difference.

We made a very fair and credible offer on Thursday, and crucially one that we could afford.

We have the quantum!