Colin M Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I fully understand why a "Yes" vote might be considered from our financial point of view - and I even understand (or would, with more information available) that there are circumstances where it would be a no brainer. In relation to my post above, if the only way we can ensure and protect the existence of St Mirren is to rig the league to make sure the new Rangers are in it, then this battle was lost a long time ago. However if that was to be the case, I'd have zero remaining interest in the farce that is the SPL anyway. I am committed to my pledge to 10000 Hours regardless of what happens but perversely I am not committed to watching and supporting whatever "product" Scottish Football decides to present to me. If they stopped thinking of it primarily as "product" then they'd be taking a massive step forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I agree the questions aren't all we might hope. No reason note to vote though. Obviously 3 no's keeps the Newco out regardless. I think the club and 10000Hours are coming close to a PR disaster with this. And at this sensitive stage of the takeover I'm not sure a PR disaster is something they can afford. For me, voting would be legitimising the questions. I'll pass. I've already emailed REA letting him know my position (as already shared with SG on more than one occasion). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottd Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Are we getting Financial projections as to what each stage means? How many more fans, etc, are required to break even in the event of a £500k hole in the budget? You can't ask questions like that with supporting documentation! Question 3 in particular is a stinker! It's a bit like asking "will you vote Labour if it means a slow death and poverty for yourself?" The people of Renfrewshire have already given their answer to that one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 this vote is more about 10000 hours and their worries than it is about the club. BoD stan up to the plate and issue your statement of intent, we shouldn't be subjected to this rubbish. last time i checked 10000 hours did not own SMFC and has failed in attempts to do so on at least three occcasion so far! Why are they framing this vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I've not looked at the questions yet, but at the last meeting Richard did appear to state that they had a budget for a post-no Gers SPL that they were happy with. They've also previously stated that there is one for relegation during the term of the loan payments. There has been a point made about 23 contracted players...is the situation we really face so bad as to get to a point where even the PFA may have to tell all players to renegotiate their contracts? Every SPL club has a youth squad, it may mean a busy summer for agents. The whole utter lack of info and assumptions across the board is really starting to get to me also. Talks of deals behind closed doors and "sponsors or SKY might do..." - Just what do Doncaster etc get paid for? Get on the phone, arrange some meetings and sell the bloody league properly. The SPL is no worse than the Championship and the coverage it gets compared to the SPL is a disgrace, likewise the Scottish media need to take their heads out of their OF promoting backsides and actually promote the league as a whole. Right, mini-rant over...better go and read the questions! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civilsaint Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Drew is correct, the name "rangers" is irrelevant. The questions have to be re-worded they are overly negative in the extreme. Cut the emotive crap, it devalues the polling process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinorr Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I would like this consultation to also cover the reports that a potential deal is being brokered involving the SPL and the SFL to relegate/parachute/dump Newco RFC into SFL1/new SPL2 as some sort of "compromise". This is as scandalous as the notion of them "carrying on" in the SPL - if reports are true, the game will potentially be restructured entirely to accomodate them! Like most fans I am wholly supportive of changes to the structure of Scottish Fitba but it must be done for the right reasons, not as some sort of political compromise to appease a TV vendor. Rangers cheated financially on an industrial scale to the extent that they ran themselves out of existence. They are starting again from scratch, and as such any admission of them into our game should be at the bottom of the existing structure - end of story. Anything else is rigging the game for financial gain. A very good post. Seems to me 10,000 Hours are asking the wrong questions. Given the number of clubs who have now said they will - or can be expected to - vote no, the chances of newco Rangers being in the top tier next season seem remote, regardless of how St Mirren vote. It now appears a carve-up with newco invited into the First Division is the likely option and that has to be one of the questions. And - as others have said - question 3 is written in a very leading way and with some emotive language. Impossible to answer unless we are are given a steer as to the amounts involved and the possibility of the different outcomes in that scenario. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 It's straightforward for me and Question 4 would be a real deal breaker as far as I'm concerned for both me and for the community group I'm involved with No No No No If the club has become unsustainable financially as a result of the mis-management of the current board of directors then it should not be the business of the buying party to bail out those directors whilst stuffing their pockets with £1.2m in used notes. I've said it many times already the correct way to approach this is to delay purchase until the financial position is known. If the club remains solvent then pay the £1.2m to the selling consortium, if it doesn't then let it go into administration, buy the club off the administrators and use the lion share of the £1.2m to restructure the club in a way that will make it sustainable and viable in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 It's straightforward for me and Question 4 would be a real deal breaker as far as I'm concerned for both me and for the community group I'm involved with No No No No If the club has become unsustainable financially as a result of the mis-management of the current board of directors then it should not be the business of the buying party to bail out those directors whilst stuffing their pockets with £1.2m in used notes. I've said it many times already the correct way to approach this is to delay purchase until the financial position is known. If the club remains solvent then pay the £1.2m to the selling consortium, if it doesn't then let it go into administration, buy the club off the administrators and use the lion share of the £1.2m to restructure the club in a way that will make it sustainable and viable in the future. Agree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ds10 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 For me, voting would be legitimising the questions. I'll pass. I've already emailed REA letting him know my position (as already shared with SG on more than one occasion). Well they are only draft questions, hopefully the strength of feeling here will mean they are changed. In my mind though making sure that the Newco gets a No vote, is far more important than worrying about the lanuage of the questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 For Question 1 - 3, absolutely not in any shape or form...and here is why! We're talking about a club who have: - Been banned from Europe. - Lifted the European Cup Winner's Cup in the dressing room. - Rioted through Manchester, the club itself showing very little remorse. - Set up an EBT scheme, whereby numerous players and staff had their salaries augmented very questionably. - Ran a financial model that wasn't sustainable even if they'd qualified for the European Cup knock out phase every season. - Spent season after season telling the world that they are moving to the English leagues, setting up an Atlantic league or looking to become part of some super duper European select group. - During this time of financial stupidity, bought players from Scottish clubs just to stop their progress. - Shown absolutely no humility whatsoever through this entire debacle. - Allowed their fans to sing whatever they like and behave however they like. They won't sit down, they throw things down at the away fans and they make the lifes of residents at away venues a nightmare...add to that the fact that Ibrox is the only ground I have had to fight my way away from (great goal by McDowall though). - Cheated to a level never before scene in football, it's verging on match fixing. - Done a lot worse than Sion, Neuchatel Xamax, Hadjuk Split and any German club who ever found their professional license revoked. - Made Gretna actually look like they were living the dream. - Directly caused the abuse and threats towards individuals by allowing Ally McCoist anywhere near a press conference. - Basically bought league and other titles with no intention of paying for it. - Caused fans of proper, well run clubs, undue stress and to miss out on the success they should have had. 4. In the event of SPL Commercial revenues reducing would you, working with the CIC and SMFC, be prepared to support the club through increased pledges and donations? Yes, but with certain conditions...the players look at their salaries, the SFA & SPL provide some sort of support to each club as they've done nothing to ensure Rangers were run properly and people like Neil Doncaster start doing their job. The fact that commercial revenues might drop, when the league as a whole will be more competitive just goes to show how much of a joke the Scottish league has become. Obviously these conditions will never be met so I suppose we'll all have to dig deep anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Well they are only draft questions, hopefully the strength of feeling here will mean they are changed. In my mind though making sure that the Newco gets a No vote, is far more important than worrying about the lanuage of the questions. I've started a thread for alternative question suggestions, and posted my own. I agree with what you are saying, to a degree, but this is exactly why I feel the questions should be pretty straightforward. Edited June 25, 2012 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) My emailed suggestions to 10000 hours (but strangely not to the club who appear to have abdicated responsibility on this issue) Option 1 – The current board of SMFC should issue a statement of intent on how they will vote on the 4th July 2012. Option 2 – a supplementary Yes/No poll of SMFC supporters who have the common sense to work through possible future scenarios given what way the vote goes. I also asked if the questions remained as they are, and the majority voted for one of the scenarios listed in the questions, could 10000 hours guarantee to deliver it? i'd like to see the answer to that Edited June 25, 2012 by somner9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I would vote No No No Yes But with Q3/Q4 I do think that if we are literally talking about a crisis engulfing the entire sport at the top level then the players across the league would be prepared to assist, even in the short term. I am not suggesting that they do this out of the goodness of their hearts, and if it means that some are free to walk away then that is fine, but it seems that it is clubs' collective commitment to existing contracts that is the biggest issue here. It is in everybodys interest that there is some potential for negotiation there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddy Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 No matter where the loss of income info' should come from - I am being asked to vote on something, and there is a lot of inference that the losses could be very, very significant. The language used is (in my view) verging on scare-mongering. I must have brain which works different from you guys (no women jokes please). I don't see it a scaremongering. To me it simply looks as if they are saying "We know you want us to vote NO to newco, but if this worse case scenario were to arise - do you still want us to say NO" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I would vote No No No Yes But with Q3/Q4 I do think that if we are literally talking about a crisis engulfing the entire sport at the top level then the players across the league would be prepared to assist, even in the short term. I am not suggesting that they do this out of the goodness of their hearts, and if it means that some are free to walk away then that is fine, but it seems that it is clubs' collective commitment to existing contracts that is the biggest issue here. It is in everybodys interest that there is some potential for negotiation there. Is it? What about the charities and community groups that are signed up to 10000hours Colin? In what way is it in their interest to bail out the current board of directors allowing the selling consortium to walk away with a healthy wedge in their pocket rather than let the club go into administration and see 10000hours pick up 100% of the club for a hell of a lot less than £1.2m? I understand St Mirren fans not wanting the club to go into administration but why ask charities and community groups - already hard pressed for cash - to agree to defer ownership and proposed benefits for a year while the current board get to cover their f**k ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Is it? What about the charities and community groups that are signed up to 10000hours Colin? In what way is it in their interest to bail out the current board of directors allowing the selling consortium to walk away with a healthy wedge in their pocket rather than let the club go into administration and see 10000hours pick up 100% of the club for a hell of a lot less than £1.2m? I understand St Mirren fans not wanting the club to go into administration but why ask charities and community groups - already hard pressed for cash - to agree to defer ownership and proposed benefits for a year while the current board get to cover their f**k ups. I was referring to the preceding two sentences in the paragraph. How you or anyone else wants to vote on Q4 is your business and entitlement. Presumably that's the point of asking the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazil85 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I'm pretty happy with these questions if I'm honest. My response to the first three would simply be no they shouldn't be aloud in under any circumstance (Believing it would never come to administration for St Mirren) and to the last I would say I believe my £15 a month I'm set to contribute + what I already give through watching them, merchandise, etc is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I was referring to the preceding two sentences in the paragraph. How you or anyone else wants to vote on Q4 is your business and entitlement. Presumably that's the point of asking the question. If a COMMUNITY Interest Company is prepared to ask Community Groups and Charities to dig deep to bail out a senior professional football club then I have to wonder where the "Community" element in this bid is. There was supposed to be mutual benefits for all parties, not a ripping the piss out of community groups to profit some directors who want to fill their pockets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 If a COMMUNITY Interest Company is prepared to ask Community Groups and Charities to dig deep to bail out a senior professional football club then I have to wonder where the "Community" element in this bid is. There was supposed to be mutual benefits for all parties, not a ripping the piss out of community groups to profit some directors who want to fill their pockets. Thanks for that - it has nothing to do with my point that I believe football players should be prepared to assist in potential financial crisis, but I enjoyed reading it all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny Saint Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 My head hurts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLS Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Firstly the questions are draught questions. We are encouraging debate and input from supporters. Secondly these are the most likely scenarios that the board of SMFC will have to take into account when they vote. That is why we have proposed these questions. I think we all know how everyone feels about this situation so to simply ask yes/no would be a waste of time but if that is what you want we are listening! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin M Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Firstly the questions are draught questions. We are encouraging debate and input from supporters. Secondly these are the most likely scenarios that the board of SMFC will have to take into account when they vote. That is why we have proposed these questions. I think we all know how everyone feels about this situation so to simply ask yes/no would be a waste of time but if that is what you want we are listening! I think that the questions are fine, in broad terms - but they do highlight a lack of information for the members (and public in general) as to what the realistic financial shortfall would be. Appreciate that may be because it's not clear, but if anything I think that lack of clarity means the driving force should be to do what is right and fair rather than what suits financially. I guess that's why some of the reaction here is just "we've already made it clear we want to say No, if you can't give us detail as to why we might change our minds then why ask?". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXBBud Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Firstly the questions are draught questions. We are encouraging debate and input from supporters. Secondly these are the most likely scenarios that the board of SMFC will have to take into account when they vote. That is why we have proposed these questions. I think we all know how everyone feels about this situation so to simply ask yes/no would be a waste of time but if that is what you want we are listening! Thank you for the clarification. Will the wording of the questions be revised based upon the feedback received? Are fans being invited to propose alternate wording to the questions as currently drafted? Are fans being invited to provide entirely different questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLS Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) http://10000hours.or...bers-newco-vote Second last paragraph before the questions. "Our intended questions are as follows but we will consider changes or alternative questions prior to publication." The board of the football club do not have any more information than you or I at this stage. This is why we are trying to cover all possible scenarios. (The quote from the website is in " ". The paragraph afterwards, although in the same case is my input.) Edited June 25, 2012 by GLS 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.