Guest somner9 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! Why aren't the club asking these (or indeed one) questions? As far as you are aware will the other bidders for the club be afforded input and opportunity to state to the support what the impact of a rangerless spl would have on their bid, plans and projections? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garzo Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 its all getting very silly now, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXBBud Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 1. Should Rangers be allowed straight back into the SPL as a Newco if it does not affect SPL revenues to SMFC for this season? This question is innapropriate. Rangers is in liquidation and can no longer field a team as its assets have been sold to Sevco 5088 (insert correct number) and cannot therefore be re-admitted. 2. Should Rangers be allowed straight back in to the SPL as a Newco if, through their absence, SMFC face a reduction of £200k in income? Alternate Wording 2A Should any football club operated by Sevco 5088 be granted direct entry to the SPL? (If the board has as much information as the fans, how are we to know that a projected drop in revenue of 200K is realistic if we don't know what Sky or any of the sponsors will do, whether other club's fans will boycott or even if gate numbers will increase with the creation of a more competitive league) 3. Should Rangers be allowed straight back in to the SPL as a Newco if, through their absence, SPL commercial revenues plummet to the extent that SMFC are faced with a massive revenue shortage and indeed the possibility of administration ? Alternate Wording 3A Should any football club operated by Sevco 5088 be granted direct entry to the SPL if the anticipated effect of their exclusion is a reduction in SPL commercial revenues to such an extent that SMFC may face cash-flow problems in meeting current contractual commitments and possibly administration? 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? No change but this would be subject to provision of information by the board & CIC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew 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! The thing is, though, the more you qualify the questions (ie: move away from a very straightforward YES/NO) the more information people require in order to inform their responses. As you've already suggested that the club and 10000Hours aren't in a position to provide much in the way of specific information at this time (understandable though this might be), perhaps keeping the question pretty simple is the way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Why have the club abdicated thier responsibility here? Why are 10000 hours involved in a SMFC matter? Caley Thistle have just announced they'll vote not to newco. Why are we being messed around and manipulated by an organisation that doesn't own the club. BoD stand up and make your statement of intent while you can still do so with integrity and credibility! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) I'm sorry but these questions are loaded and quite frankly very disappointing. I had expected information upon which to base my decision, not baseless rhetoric that allows no-one to make an informed decision. I am abstaining from this vote. Actually the wording of those questions is absolutely hilarious. Clearly the author wants a Yes to NewCo and also clearly thinks the fans are idiots. No No No Yes are the only answers that matter. The rest of bullshit. Edited June 25, 2012 by oaksoft Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLS Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 1. Should Rangers be allowed straight back into the SPL as a Newco if it does not affect SPL revenues to SMFC for this season? This question is innapropriate. Rangers is in liquidation and can no longer field a team as its assets have been sold to Sevco 5088 (insert correct number) and cannot therefore be re-admitted. 2. Should Rangers be allowed straight back in to the SPL as a Newco if, through their absence, SMFC face a reduction of £200k in income? Alternate Wording 2A Should any football club operated by Sevco 5088 be granted direct entry to the SPL? (If the board has as much information as the fans, how are we to know that a projected drop in revenue of 200K is realistic if we don't know what Sky or any of the sponsors will do, whether other club's fans will boycott or even if gate numbers will increase with the creation of a more competitive league) 3. Should Rangers be allowed straight back in to the SPL as a Newco if, through their absence, SPL commercial revenues plummet to the extent that SMFC are faced with a massive revenue shortage and indeed the possibility of administration ? Alternate Wording 3A Should any football club operated by Sevco 5088 be granted direct entry to the SPL if the anticipated effect of their exclusion is a reduction in SPL commercial revenues to such an extent that SMFC may face cash-flow problems in meeting current contractual commitments and possibly administration? 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? No change but this would be subject to provision of information by the board & CIC. Although people on this website may be aware who Sevco 5088 are the majority of our members will have no idea what we are talking about therefore it makes sense to use "Rangers" and "Newco" terminology. There are three probable possibilities if we vote No. Newco is voted out of the SPL and the revenues remain the same. Newco is voted out of the SPL and the sponsors re negotiate their deals at a level that will not put the other clubs at risk. (We feel that figure for SMFC is £200k) Newco is voted out of the SPL and the sponsors pull the plug on their contracts at which point the other clubs have to decide whether to vote Newco back into the SPL or risk the financial consequences. A simple yes/no is a waste of time as we know the answer. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLS Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I do like your 3a though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxbar_bud Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Am i the only one that thinks the ship has sailed in terms of canvassing fan opinion? We are now 1 confirmed NO vote away from Newco not being in the SPL next year, and that doesnt include Celtic and St Johnstone who have heavily hinted at a NO vote. With Celtic fans talking of boycotting games involving teams that voted YES. what exactly will be achieved voting YES? it will just end up with a double hit for our finances SMFC need to Vote No and put the issue to bed. They know the fans opinion, scaremongering wont change that opinion. Not when we see clubs like ICT stepping out and backing a NO vote who must be in a similar position to ourselves financially Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft 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! No, what you've done is mix up two things into one. We can only speculate why you've done that but if this was how the independence referendum question was structured you'd have the electoral commission down your throat. All you needed to do was place your concerns in a list and then ask a simple question:- Based on the info above, should this NewCo be voted straight into the SPL to take over from Rangers? We're not idiots and treating us like we are is likely to annoy people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXBBud Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Although people on this website may be aware who Sevco 5088 are the majority of our members will have no idea what we are talking about therefore it makes sense to use "Rangers" and "Newco" terminology. There are three probable possibilities if we vote No. Newco is voted out of the SPL and the revenues remain the same. Newco is voted out of the SPL and the sponsors re negotiate their deals at a level that will not put the other clubs at risk. (We feel that figure for SMFC is £200k) Newco is voted out of the SPL and the sponsors pull the plug on their contracts at which point the other clubs have to decide whether to vote Newco back into the SPL or risk the financial consequences. A simple yes/no is a waste of time as we know the answer. . Explanatory note to accompany the questionnaire - simple. Sevco need not be included, Newco probably, but it cannot be Rangers for the reasons stated. My proposed wording for question 3 is a yes or no, but it is worded neutrally whilst still raising the point that revenues could decline to dangerous levels and it explains what the consequences may be, the extent of which is at present unknown by all, including the board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Although people on this website may be aware who Sevco 5088 are the majority of our members will have no idea what we are talking about therefore it makes sense to use "Rangers" and "Newco" terminology. There are three probable possibilities if we vote No. Newco is voted out of the SPL and the revenues remain the same. Newco is voted out of the SPL and the sponsors re negotiate their deals at a level that will not put the other clubs at risk. (We feel that figure for SMFC is £200k) Newco is voted out of the SPL and the sponsors pull the plug on their contracts at which point the other clubs have to decide whether to vote Newco back into the SPL or risk the financial consequences. A simple yes/no is a waste of time as we know the answer. . So is the plan to keep changing the question until you get the answer you want? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXBBud Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I do like your 3a though Replies crossed in the mail Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 We're not idiots and treating us like we are is likely to annoy people. Correct. As simple YES/NO question is only a waste of time if it is assumed that those responding aren't capable of considering the associated implications and potential consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLS Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I dont understand the problem. 10000 hours will gain no benefit from how the questions are asked or answered. We are simply trying to present a fans opinion to the board in a way that they can consider which way the fans would have them vote under every eventuality. If we wanted to court popularity we would simply say YES/NO and everyone would vote NO! That would be treating folk like idiots! We have provided as much information as we have on each scenario to enable people to vote YES or No. Do you honestly think that everyone who says No to Newco would say NO if it meant St Mirren going into administration? Is that really what you want from the people who will potentially run our football club on your behalf? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I dont understand the problem. 10000 hours will gain no benefit from how the questions are asked or answered. We are simply trying to present a fans opinion to the board in a way that they can consider which way the fans would have them vote under every eventuality. If we wanted to court popularity we would simply say YES/NO and everyone would vote NO! That would be treating folk like idiots! We have provided as much information as we have on each scenario to enable people to vote YES or No. Do you honestly think that everyone who says No to Newco would say NO if it meant St Mirren going into administration? Is that really what you want from the people who will potentially run our football club on your behalf? If we vote for your various scenarios, can you deliver them? if the answer is no then they are meaningless issues to vote upon as no one actually knows what the ultimate scenario will be. What are you seeking to achieve? is it perhaps the opportunity at a later date to say "look we said that might have been a scenario when you voted no to newco, so you can't say we ddin't warn you"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLS Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 We are looking to present the fans opinion to the board so they can take it into consideration when they make their decision. Simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXBBud Posted June 25, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 "We have provided as much information as we have on each scenario" ie. none. No information has been provided on which to base responses to the proposed questions unless I have missed it. Clearly none of us want SMFC to enter administration but that is not the point. That is a possibility, however remote, as it is for half the SPL clubs, but that is not preventing them from speaking out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 We are looking to present the fans opinion to the board so they can take it into consideration when they make their decision. Simple as that. Then may I suggest given the comment and response so far that the questions you have tabled do not equal the "fans opinion" All the scenario guessing in the world is wholly irrelevant unless you can actually guarantee one of them will be IT, we could vote on a hundred different variations, the important and only VOTE is yes/no! by all means issue correct, succinct and credible info to outline what a vote either way COULD mean. But asking the fans to vote on your concerns/fears/issues is not the point here, you are conflating your aims and objectives with that of the support and the likewise the club moving forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Poz, so the questions are largely irrelevant to you,as they are to me, its No all the way so what does it matter how emotive the questions are? It matters because there are two sides to this sorry saga. I have never doubted for one moment that the loss of one of our biggest clubs causes financial problems. It causes undeniable loss in visiting fan numbers, it causes uncertainty over the TV deal, it possibly causes CK concern with selling corporate tables less easily, it causes less business for the likes of the Buddie Good Food van, it causes possibly hundreds of Ibrox employees to be on edge over their jobs / mortgages.... I could go on. It would be exactly the same if this was Porto or Benfica - take emotion out if it, the facts are a smallish country losing one of two disproportionally large clubs causes problems. My problem is that I haven't a scooby-doo how severe the financial problem is, I am being given zero facts about the severity of the financial implications, yet I am being given emotive language about how scary it is, and am being asked to vote 'Yes' or 'No' to this Newco malarky. Whether I am entrenched in my 'No' position is a side-issue. If you want us to vote on something which is a Yes or No issue, give us something tangible to chew over in regard to the 'Yes' option. I'm absolutely with ktf. If the questions go out as first mooted on here - I'm abstaining. In regard to the CIC getting more income - I'm all for that, but the Rangers Zombie Dawn of the Dead Newco FC issue isn't a cause on which to seemingly attempt some fundraising. I bought into the concept of the CIC as being something positive - an antidote indeed to the sugar daddy ownership model such as Gretna, Livingston or the soon to be deceased Rangers. More income for the CIC should be generated because more and more St Mirren minded people are convinced that it is right, that it is positive, and that it genuinely is the best way forward after a long period under the outgoing BOD. People shouldn't be encouraged to pump more of their hard-earned into it because Rangers are fcuked. Edited June 25, 2012 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 It matters because there are two sides to this sorry saga. I have never doubted for one moment that the loss of one of our biggest clubs causes financial problems. It causes undeniable loss in visiting fan numbers, it causes uncertainty over the TV deal, it possibly causes CK concern with selling corporate tables less easily, it causes less business for the likes of the Buddie Good Food van, it causes possibly hundreds of Ibrox employees to be on edge over their jobs / mortgages.... I could go on. It would be exactly the same if this was Porto or Benfica - take emotion out if it, the facts are a smallish country losing one of two disproportionally large clubs causes problems. My problem is that I haven't a scooby-doo how severe the financial problem is, I am being given zero facts about the severity of the financial implications, yet I am being given emotive language about how scary it is, and am being asked to vote 'Yes' or 'No' to this Newco malarky. Whether I am entrenched in my 'No' position is a side-issue. If you want us to vote on something which is a Yes or No issue, give us something tangible to chew over in regard to the 'Yes' option. I'm absolutely with ktf. If the questions go out as first mooted on here - I'm abstaining. In regard to the CIC getting more income - I'm all for that, but the Rangers Zombie Dawn of the Dead Newco FC issue isn't a cause on which to seemingly attempt some fundraising. I bought into the concept of the CIC as being something positive - an antidote indeed to the sugar daddy ownership model such as Gretna, Livingston or the soon to be deceased Rangers. More income for the CIC should be generated because more and more St Mirren minded people are convinced that it is right, that it is positive, and that it genuinely is the best way forward after a long period under the outgoing BOD. People shouldn't be encouraged to pump more of their hard-earned into it because Rangers are fcuked. Good god I agree with this! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Good god I agree with this! We can't allow that. I've changed my mind. The questions are fantastic, and I'm voting 'Yes' to Sevco 5088 Zombie Dawn of the Dead FCs proposed application to be immediately admitted to the SPL without passing go and collecting £200. No, that can't be right. Hold on a minute.... OK, got it now. I'm voting 'No' because it is patently absurd to allow this debt-dodging bunch of arrogant, cheating, corrupt bawbags to even try to weasel their way into the top flight simply because they used to be Rangers, and are therefore 'the people'. This is getting silly indeed. Are they no' deid' yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLS Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I guess we need to make sure the pre amble to the questions is very clear as to what we are trying to achieve as it appears that most people on here are viewing it the wrong way. As always your input is appreciated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 We can't allow that. I've changed my mind. The questions are fantastic, and I'm voting 'Yes' to Sevco 5088 Zombie Dawn of the Dead FCs proposed application to be immediately admitted to the SPL without passing go and collecting £200. No, that can't be right. Hold on a minute.... OK, got it now. I'm voting 'No' because it is patently absurd to allow this debt-dodging bunch of arrogant, cheating, corrupt bawbags to even try to weasel their way into the top flight simply because they used to be Rangers, and are therefore 'the people'. This is getting silly indeed. Are they no' deid' yet? Theres only one certainty to vote on? Yes/No to newco? everything else offered up is conjecture, speculation and poltical manouvering. The very things what did for "Ra Peepul".... stop arsing about and issue a statement of intent, jeez could it be any simpler on this issue to guage the overwhelming opion of the support of SMFC??? J.F.D.I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 I guess we need to make sure the pre amble to the questions is very clear as to what we are trying to achieve as it appears that most people on here are viewing it the wrong way. As always your input is appreciated. But with the greatest respect the questions are irrelevant unless you can guarantee they will indeed become the outcome. In an election you don't get a ballot paper with a set of scenarios, you get a list of candidates to say yes/no to! Then they can at thier leisure go back on most of the issues they highlighted in their manifesto. We don't need or indeed want a pre-amble, just the BoD to issue a statement of intent on our behalf, today whilst they can do so with thier collective heads held high! what comes after you have to deal with! There are no guarantees in business especially football. 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.