"no To Newco" Vote

[pozbaird]

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.

Gordon, you know me, and you know I am not trying to be awkward or to mess anyone around. I have given my honest opinion - I don't think the questions are worded well and are loaded way too much in one way. We all know that the overwhelming feeling out there is of 'No to Newco' anyway, but still, none of us know what 'No to Newco' actually means for our pounds and pennies. None of us are denying that those pounds and pennies are a concern. Without any info' though, we simply don't know how much of a concern it really is. A bit of balance and some more info is all I'm personally asking for.

[St. Sid]

Utter shambles - the BoD should do what the other clubs have done and just announce that they will be voting no.

If 10000 Hours want to test / prove the voting system to fans let's make it a simple yes / no on the new charges for disabled fans carers.

[Guest somner9]

Utter shambles - the BoD should do what the other clubs have done and just announce that they will be voting no.

If 10000 Hours want to test / prove the voting system to fans let's make it a simple yes / no on the new charges for disabled fans carers.

And veggie sausages???

[oaksoft]

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.

Please don't do this.

We are not viewing it the wrong way.

The questions are simply dreadful and 10000 hrs are rightly getting it in the neck.

[oaksoft]

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.

BTW on a lighter note. Welcome to fan power.

I hope you guys know what you're letting yourselves in for .

[St. Sid]

And veggie sausages???

Yes, that would work too.....the newco is a dodgy one to use as the test.

The BoD should just formally announce their intent to vote no - I doubt there'll be any complaints from anyone if they do that.

10000 Hours can fanny about testing their voting system / levels of intelligence on a less challenging subject.

[Guest somner9]

So 10000 hours chose to be the sounding board for the club, and the BoD agreed to this and abdicated its responsibilities as custodians of our club. At present FIVE spl clubs have indicated they will vote No to Newco. I am unaware that they (the clubs) went through a conflated/loaded voting process to come to that consensus.

10000 hours (who still do not own SMFC) put themselves forward to manage this, their first attempt at a democratic processs, and it's managed to crash and burn before take off.

Is this the type of loaded vote/debate we can look forward to from the interim Cic board if they ever bid for the club?

I can tell you with a degree of confidence that if you do not deliver the fans opinion on this unequivocally, without caveats, conditions or shades of grey, then your CiC will be TOAST! in the eyes of the support.

Man-up if you want this job, it gets harder from here on in!

[pozbaird]

So 10000 hours chose to be the sounding board for the club, and the BoD agreed to this and abdicated its responsibilities as custodians of our club. At present FIVE spl clubs have indicated they will vote No to Newco. I am unaware that they (the clubs) went through a conflated/loaded voting process to come to that consensus.

10000 hours (who still do not own SMFC) put themselves forward to manage this, their first attempt at a democratic processs, and it's managed to crash and burn before take off.

Is this the type of loaded vote/debate we can look forward to from the interim Cic board if they ever bid for the club?

I can tell you with a degree of confidence that if you do not deliver the fans opinion on this unequivocally, without caveats, conditions or shades of grey, then your CiC will be TOAST! in the eyes of the support.

Man-up if you want this job, it gets harder from here on in!

To be fair, I kind of agree with you here. I understand the reasoning behind the outgoing BOD wanting to work alongside 10000hours on canvassing opinion - but I absolutely agree with you in regard to making the issues as clear as possible, and not to further muddy the waters - which in this case are already exceedingly muddy.

Drew (I think) seems to have got it right. As a BOD, as a club - Vlad has lead the way, the Arabs, Hibs and others have followed. Just feckin' say NO too - because it is the right thing to do anyway.

We need to move on and start portraying St Mirren and the CIC as a positive thing - on its own merits.

[DXBBud]

Here here Poz. The boat has been missed but I think we have witnessed the good and bad points of how the CIC might function.

Knowledge is power and without it and clarity from the CIC the 1000 or so subscribers and the fan base in general are smart enough to ask some searching questions

[RussellV1]

Is there actually any point of this anymore given that we know in advance that the SPL vote will result in a no anyway?

[davidg]

I'm extremely disappointed that it's reached this,. All SPL clubs should have stated their intention of a no vote by now and that would be the matter done and dusted.

[Drew]

Is there actually any point of this anymore given that we know in advance that the SPL vote will result in a no anyway?

Yes, there absolutely is a point.

We owe it to those clubs who have demonstrated integrity in making official statements to the effect that they will be voting NO. They deserve recognition for this by way of the formal vote.

I'm embarrassed with my club this afternoon, and my association with it. Pretty shameful, really.

[DXBBud]

This thread has inbuilt obsolescence. Took so long to get anywhere worthwhile that it was overtaken by events

[FTOF]

I'm neither embarassed nor disappointed.

However,I am frustrated by the lack of a meaningful statement from our board.

They surely know by now that almost every Saints fan would support a "No" vote from our club.

Edited June 25, 2012 by FTOF

[div]

The survey has now been sent out to 1038 email addresses representing all signed up individuals, 87 club and 1877 club members.

Seems like a bit of a waste of time now but there you are, it's out there now anyway.

Please check your inboxes and respond as quickly as you can.

[reborn saint]

Just a thought...As I have posted before the idea that at least "the gang of ten" are not talking to each other all through this "coming out " of individual clubs seems absurd to me.... Then I had a look at the clubs who have publicly said No and I think there is a pattern and a reason why and when they did so and also why we are not on the list.

I think we can all agree the clubs are trying to manage the impact of a No vote against season ticket sales . Against this background some clubs are under pressure from the bank and had earlier been told (In a round about way to say yes).

They NEED! this season ticket money NOW if they are going to continue without increasing their overdraft or loan facility.

Dundee Utd are reported to be most affected by ST sales and therefore can quite rightly say to the bank..."We need to say No or they will not buy".

I think they would already have had the assurance that other clubs would follow so they were not a sitting Duck....The Aberdeen one was interesting because their Denail about the No vote strikes me as one about timing rather than content...The banks final descision?

St Mirren and Motherwell have had good season ticket sales but the key thing is here that other clubs I'm sure would understand we are in a takeover position and would give us a bit of leeway. Kilmarnock really are the most exposed club in the SPL and it might be best for them if they don't need to vote.

Cel*ic are an obvious No but why give the Daily Record the headline of "Celt*c kill Ran*ers".

[DXBBud]

Just a thought...As I have posted before the idea that at least "the gang of ten" are not talking to each other all through this "coming out " of individual clubs seems absurd to me.... Then I had a look at the clubs who have publicly said No and I think there is a pattern and a reason why and when they did so and also why we are not on the list.

I think we can all agree the clubs are trying to manage the impact of a No vote against season ticket sales . Against this background some clubs are under pressure from the bank and had earlier been told (In a round about way to say yes).

They NEED! this season ticket money NOW if they are going to continue without increasing their overdraft or loan facility.

Dundee Utd are reported to be most affected by ST sales and therefore can quite rightly say to the bank..."We need to say No or they will not buy".

I think they would already have had the assurance that other clubs would follow so they were not a sitting Duck....The Aberdeen one was interesting because their Denail about the No vote strikes me as one about timing rather than content...The banks final descision?

St Mirren and Motherwell have had good season ticket sales but the key thing is here that other clubs I'm sure would understand we are in a takeover position and would give us a bit of leeway. Kilmarnock really are the most exposed club in the SPL and it might be best for them if they don't need to vote.

Cel*ic are an obvious No but why give the Daily Record the headline of "Celt*c kill Ran*ers".

You know, that might not be far from the mark if you think about it in a conspiracy theory sort of way!

[Guest somner9]

Shocking state of affairs that our club has seemingly No Opinion????

Why haven't the BoD voiced our opinion??? Poor, poor form and the associated "lets make a bit more out of this" slant by 10000 hours is a bad sign of whats to come when you don't have real democracy.

[pozbaird]

Shocking state of affairs that our club has seemingly No Opinion????

Why haven't the BoD voiced our opinion??? Poor, poor form and the associated "lets make a bit more out of this" slant by 10000 hours is a bad sign of whats to come when you don't have real democracy.

On the contrary - they put out PROSPECTIVE questions, invited input - and got it. If this is a portent of things to come - it shows that our voices matter, and are actively invited.

Edited June 25, 2012 by pozbaird

[TsuMirren]

On the contrary - they put out PROSPECTIVE questions, invited input - and got it. If this is a portent of things to come - it shows that our voices matter, and are actively invited.

Of course he doesn't see that. As it stands, Saint Mirren at least commited to consulting us prior to the 4 or 5 coming forward. Alongside that is the fact thst the questions and intent are a lot better than the letter put out to season ticket holders of Kilmarnock.

[oaksoft]

On the contrary - they put out PROSPECTIVE questions, invited input - and got it. If this is a portent of things to come - it shows that our voices matter, and are actively invited.

Actually it's more a case of the board wanting some security.

If they say NO and our club runs into trouble they'll want to be able to say "You asked for this".

That's as it should be.

It is our club after all.

It's just taken them too long to sort this but at least they are doing it now.

We'll get our NO vote and we'll have all earned it.

No need for embarassment or anything as Drew talks about.

[Chris]

I am quite happy with the chance to vote - this is the first sign of the CIC in action and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. As usual, people would rather snipe and be negative, rather than say anything positive. Not really that bothered about who said no first, rather I'm glad to have had my say unlike the fans of most other clubs (regardless of whether everyone knew what the majority of fans of all clubs would say).

For what it's worth, I also added the following comments:

Whether or not this decision causes short term financial pain to St Mirren or to Scottish football as a whole is irrelevant. There can only be one answer in order to uphold the integrity of the sport.

This should be seen as a chance to reposition Scottish football on a healthier basis: if it is currently the case that St Mirren, or any other club, is so reliant on revenue from only one half of the Old Firm that it could not survive without it, then that club is currently being run irresponsibly and that must change. A few extra hundred thousand pounds makes no difference to the quality of the football on offer (provided all clubs suffer equally, which they should unless some clubs are being run better than others: again, those being run irresponsibly will have to change). Instead, squads will be a little smaller, all clubs will pay local young players a little less - these players will continue to play for local clubs before moving to England in search of better money and it can only be for the good of Scottish football if clubs start to conentrate on these young players - and mercenaries from the lower English leagues, who offer little in the way of entertainment, will either accept lower wages for the chance to play in a top flight league and potentially in Europe, or else they will not come at all, neither of which consequences makes any difference to the supporter or the entertainment on show.

Sadly, football may have become a business and there may now be no going back from that, but Scotland is a small country and its clubs cannot hope to compete on the European scale, or even with English clubs with much larger catchment areas. Rangers is the proof of that - even with years of cheating, they could only manage one European final in which they were thoroughly out-classed. This must be the time that we seek to improve the game in our own country, concentrating on the many positives we do have - higher attendances per head of population than anywhere in Europe - and budgeting accordingly.

A competitive game, without the restrictive voting and financial practices of the Old Firm which have stifled the game since the 1980s, can only spark renewed interest in our national sport and must be the way forward.

[civilsaint]

Based on the re-tweets by 10000hours it looks, unsurprisingly, that the st Mirren vote is a resounding NO.

[oaksoft]

I am quite happy with the chance to vote - this is the first sign of the CIC in action and I'm perfectly satisfied with it. As usual, people would rather snipe and be negative, rather than say anything positive. Not really that bothered about who said no first, rather I'm glad to have had my say unlike the fans of most other clubs (regardless of whether everyone knew what the majority of fans of all clubs would say).

For what it's worth, I also added the following comments:

Whether or not this decision causes short term financial pain to St Mirren or to Scottish football as a whole is irrelevant. There can only be one answer in order to uphold the integrity of the sport.

This should be seen as a chance to reposition Scottish football on a healthier basis: if it is currently the case that St Mirren, or any other club, is so reliant on revenue from only one half of the Old Firm that it could not survive without it, then that club is currently being run irresponsibly and that must change. A few extra hundred thousand pounds makes no difference to the quality of the football on offer (provided all clubs suffer equally, which they should unless some clubs are being run better than others: again, those being run irresponsibly will have to change). Instead, squads will be a little smaller, all clubs will pay local young players a little less - these players will continue to play for local clubs before moving to England in search of better money and it can only be for the good of Scottish football if clubs start to conentrate on these young players - and mercenaries from the lower English leagues, who offer little in the way of entertainment, will either accept lower wages for the chance to play in a top flight league and potentially in Europe, or else they will not come at all, neither of which consequences makes any difference to the supporter or the entertainment on show.

Sadly, football may have become a business and there may now be no going back from that, but Scotland is a small country and its clubs cannot hope to compete on the European scale, or even with English clubs with much larger catchment areas. Rangers is the proof of that - even with years of cheating, they could only manage one European final in which they were thoroughly out-classed. This must be the time that we seek to improve the game in our own country, concentrating on the many positives we do have - higher attendances per head of population than anywhere in Europe - and budgeting accordingly.

A competitive game, without the restrictive voting and financial practices of the Old Firm which have stifled the game since the 1980s, can only spark renewed interest in our national sport and must be the way forward.

Good post. I chose to ignore the pompous shite I highlighted above.

[Julian Banjos]

Don't have a problem with the timescale.

June 14th - Rangers liquidated

June 18th - The newco bid was submitted to the SPL

June 21st - 10,000 hours submitted their bid to take over St Mirren.

June 25th - CiC members consulted on newco vote

June 28th - 11 SPL clubs meet at Hampden

July 4th - Formal vote takes place

We're not in a "who can say 'naw' first" competition with the rest of the SPL clubs; as well as that, the last couple of weeks have been mental. In the circumstances, I think the club are playing this fine.

As for the questions asked, I don't have a problem with them either. The answers to the 4 questions will mean that our board will, compared to the other clubs, be armed with more information from their fans than most of the other 10 when they go into that meeting on Thursday.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Julian Banjos