Guest somner9 Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 Sevco want to play in the Irish league....(no laughing please)......Charlie Green is our comical Ali.....Keeps going till the bombs drop....One just dropped on his head! is this for real or your prediction of their next move. either way it's a belter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 In What Way is it Offensive ? I Find it Offensive that Millionare Buisness Men, Come on this Board, And BEG fan's To Bail Them OUT - Now that to Me is Fcking taking The PISH !!! What is offensive is you suggesting that Gordon Scott is in this to make a fast buck, and also to see that his ex-colleagues in the boardroom get a nice wedge..... Isn't that what you suggested? Happy to stand corrected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 In What Way is it Offensive ? I Find it Offensive that Millionare Buisness Men, Come on this Board, And BEG fan's To Bail Them OUT - Now that to Me is Fcking taking The PISH !!! The tone. The cheap shot. If you can represent your concerns without the need to resort to personalised attacks based on assumptions and speculation, then people might be more inclined to address them, I'd have thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 You Failed To Convince Me to Join Your Pig in a Poke ? Was It You That Stole the Constitution from Clyde Fc ? Do You like Sausage Rolls ? More Questions, Than answers has Your CIC ? My head hurts. Anyone got some Anadin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reborn saint Posted June 25, 2012 Report Share Posted June 25, 2012 is this for real or your prediction of their next move. either way it's a belter I don't have inside knowlege for anything I say......But I do try to find out about my club and anything that affects it. It's fair to say that the Sevco situation is what concerns me the most. Anyone can say what they want on here and I look for people who have been right in the past and also what makes sense. Now no matter what I've been told the facts are...How can Sevco pay for 340 employees when they are £17M down on last seasons ticket sales and no SPl or European football next season. I have been told a meeting took place over the weekend and tomorrow the plug will be pulled.These are the facts I go with and I will be astounded if they are not correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXBBud Posted June 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 You (10000 hours) were at pains to tell us today that the questions were there for debate and reaction, inferring that they could be changed if opinion was for that. But you chose to go with them anyway in the face of a significant response indicating they did not sit right with the support and the context of what was being debated. Your choice at the end of the day but not great as a first consultation excercise with the membership. Why insist the questions were up for change/debate if you had decided to go with them anyway? Somner Can I suggest that you re-read the original question posted on the CIC website at the link in the second post in this thread, then compare them with those that were issued with the questionnaire. You will see that some some of them remain the same, but after much outcry and discussion on here, and elsewhere I expect, question 3 was amended based upon wording proposed by me. Last time I checked I was not a member of the board or anything more than a 15 quid subscriber to the CIC. I will therefore be happy for you to show me and probably others, where the fans thoughts were disregarded and the CIC went with what they wanted to say from the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Old Fan Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Just scanned over posts from last night. Really glad I decided to switch off computer in anticipation of too much bullshit. Have switched on again at 6 and will now consider my response to the questions despite other clubs seemingly having taken it out of our hands. Voted now, No No No Yes Edited June 26, 2012 by Grumpy Old Fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLBud Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 I am not in Gordons Back pocket ! Has Gordon Been in The Parachute Regiment ? He was a Joiner and a no Bad Footballer - But His Epic Conversion.( Bit like Sid's Really ) From Pro - Anti CIC, Our Chairman Elect , Should Get his Posse rounded up, And get SMIFC on Board - Think We are gonnae need them ! Ps: Poz GYSTF !! I don't know why people keep responding to this troll? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big_Mougie Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 The usual suspect shouting about the usual guff!! Not even attempting to listen to anyone who tries to reason with them make it all rather boring going round and round in circles with these fools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 Somner Can I suggest that you re-read the original question posted on the CIC website at the link in the second post in this thread, then compare them with those that were issued with the questionnaire. You will see that some some of them remain the same, but after much outcry and discussion on here, and elsewhere I expect, question 3 was amended based upon wording proposed by me. Last time I checked I was not a member of the board or anything more than a 15 quid subscriber to the CIC. I will therefore be happy for you to show me and probably others, where the fans thoughts were disregarded and the CIC went with what they wanted to say from the start. Quote: "Can I suggest" No! Same question words moved around, a shameful attempt by 10000 hours to get more subs off people who have already committed financially (unlike 10000 hours) The call was for question 4 to be removed. And the scenarios we were invited to vote on 10000 hours can't actually deliver! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXBBud Posted June 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 Quote: "Can I suggest" No! Same question words moved around, a shameful attempt by 10000 hours to get more subs off people who have already committed financially (unlike 10000 hours) The call was for question 4 to be removed. And the scenarios we were invited to vote on 10000 hours can't actually deliver! The vote isn't about what we want the CIC and the Board to deliver. It's about consultation on the thoughts and opinions of the fans of the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 50% of replies now received back, and all the results in so far are shown on the homepage of www.10000hours.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 The tone. The cheap shot. If you can represent your concerns without the need to resort to personalised attacks based on assumptions and speculation, then people might be more inclined to address them, I'd have thought. The tone was poor; however the points being made do appear to have some validity. GLS resigned from the BoD in true Greta Garbo style. Then we had REA telling shareholders that their shares would be worthless irrespective of who bought the club as a majority shareholding would be getting sold. CIC hits funding problems - GLS appears - with a Vegas tan - to tell us he's had a change of heart. "I don't understand the CIC; however it is happening and I'd rather be in it than outside it....hardly a ringing endorsement. Background negotiations take place and a hairbrained scheme to try and bridge the funding gap whilst getting cash for GLS's shares and a place on the BoD. That hasn't worked, so now REA appears to be buddying up to the SNP to try and bridge the funding gap. Is it only a matter of time before we see somner9 being approached with an offer of a place on the BoD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 50% of replies now received back, and all the results in so far are shown on the homepage of www.10000hours.org The twelve cnuts that have voted for the newco to get back into the SPL should be blackballed out of 10000 Hours. I am guessing the 12 include the interim Board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 The tone was poor; however the points being made do appear to have some validity. GLS resigned from the BoD in true Greta Garbo style. Then we had REA telling shareholders that their shares would be worthless irrespective of who bought the club as a majority shareholding would be getting sold. CIC hits funding problems - GLS appears - with a Vegas tan - to tell us he's had a change of heart. "I don't understand the CIC; however it is happening and I'd rather be in it than outside it....hardly a ringing endorsement. Background negotiations take place and a hairbrained scheme to try and bridge the funding gap whilst getting cash for GLS's shares and a place on the BoD. That hasn't worked, so now REA appears to be buddying up to the SNP to try and bridge the funding gap. Is it only a matter of time before we see somner9 being approached with an offer of a place on the BoD. Someone did make an approach by the lavvies in Orr Square the other night. and he did mention Dick? But also the name of a past legend but I don't know if he mean't Torrance, Reid or the wee wan Mckean that went to the big hoose??? " But he definetly said I'd get to meet Boaby! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 The twelve cnuts that have voted for the newco to get back into the SPL should be blackballed out of 10000 Hours. I am guessing the 12 include the interim Board. And the current BoD! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 The vote isn't about what we want the CIC and the Board to deliver. It's about consultation on the thoughts and opinions of the fans of the club. So why vote on options that may never come to pass? what is the point in that? 10000 hours as far as I know don't possess the celestial powers to engineer the scenarios they painted. Yes/No vote: made sense, you could mull over talk to your mates about the implications and vote accordingly. yes/no The scenarios painted by 10000 hours are just that "Scenarios" no one knows if they will ever exist, so why vote for them if no one including 10000 hours can actually guarantee that they will be what happens, or indeed deliver that scenario to the people that voted for it???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 So why vote on options that may never come to pass? what is the point in that? Brutally obvious actually. The responses to the questions effectively gives the consortium / 10000 Hours a mandate to hit the fans for more cash in the event of a reduction in revenues. This could be in the form of season ticket price hikes or any other club related income they would like to increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddavid Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 I have not been asked and I am not in favour of the 10000 hours idea , But I would if asked vote Yes , Scottish football without either of the old firm would be poorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpj Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 I have not been asked and I am not in favour of the 10000 hours idea , But I would if asked vote Yes , Scottish football without either of the old firm would be poorer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 I have not been asked and I am not in favour of the 10000 hours idea , But I would if asked vote Yes , Scottish football without either of the old firm would be poorer Your arse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 Brutally obvious actually. The responses to the questions effectively gives the consortium / 10000 Hours a mandate to hit the fans for more cash in the event of a reduction in revenues. This could be in the form of season ticket price hikes or any other club related income they would like to increase. It's Question 4 that has riled me. I can't see how anyone could square this with a Community Group membership. For years now St Mirren have been seen as the opposition to many grass root clubs. The perception has been that St Mirren made a grab for cash from every community initiative going, that St Mirren have become less and less supportive and helpful to grassroots clubs (for example now charging for signed balls and shirts), and their pro youth side is seen as predatory amongst several grass roots sides. Then there is the CIC proposal which on the face of it looks like a really good bridge, promoted with the idea of mutual benefits for the community group, SMFC and the CIC......and now we have Question 4 where in essence 80% of the membership are now saying that those community groups who have signed up should give SMFC £120 per annum in return for absolutely nothing over the first year. Question 4 IMO just proves that the CIC is more of the same old St Mirren I'm afraid and if there is an attempt to draw money from those groups, with ownership being delayed for a year then I'm out. I can't back a Community Interest Company that is interested in grabbing even more cash from community groups and charities to prop up an ailing SPL football club that can't work within its budgets! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXBBud Posted June 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 It's Question 4 that has riled me. I can't see how anyone could square this with a Community Group membership. For years now St Mirren have been seen as the opposition to many grass root clubs. The perception has been that St Mirren made a grab for cash from every community initiative going, that St Mirren have become less and less supportive and helpful to grassroots clubs (for example now charging for signed balls and shirts), and their pro youth side is seen as predatory amongst several grass roots sides. Then there is the CIC proposal which on the face of it looks like a really good bridge, promoted with the idea of mutual benefits for the community group, SMFC and the CIC......and now we have Question 4 where in essence 80% of the membership are now saying that those community groups who have signed up should give SMFC £120 per annum in return for absolutely nothing over the first year. Question 4 IMO just proves that the CIC is more of the same old St Mirren I'm afraid and if there is an attempt to draw money from those groups, with ownership being delayed for a year then I'm out. I can't back a Community Interest Company that is interested in grabbing even more cash from community groups and charities to prop up an ailing SPL football club that can't work within its budgets! The key to everything surrounding the vote and ultimately the scenarios that could lead to a request such as that envisaged by Question 4 is that it could not possibly be made without the provision of information to the CIC subscribers regarding the particular circumstances that require the injection of additional cash. This was put to GLS yesterday earlier in this thread. Without the information to make an educated decision every last one of us would be entitled to turn around and say "No thanks" when it comes to us being asked to commit our own money to the survival of SMFC. This should not and must not be seen as a bottomless piggy-bank by the CIC or the Board by playing the guilt card on the fans every time. It is only fair to expect that if we are being asked to put our hands in our pockets that those asking us to do so explain why they are asking us to do so and that they also explain what contribution they are making themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St. Sid Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 The key to everything surrounding the vote and ultimately the scenarios that could lead to a request such as that envisaged by Question 4 is that it could not possibly be made without the provision of information to the CIC subscribers regarding the particular circumstances that require the injection of additional cash. This was put to GLS yesterday earlier in this thread. Without the information to make an educated decision every last one of us would be entitled to turn around and say "No thanks" when it comes to us being asked to commit our own money to the survival of SMFC. This should not and must not be seen as a bottomless piggy-bank by the CIC or the Board by playing the guilt card on the fans every time. It is only fair to expect that if we are being asked to put our hands in our pockets that those asking us to do so explain why they are asking us to do so and that they also explain what contribution they are making themselves. Not you usual clarity there DXB......looks like this is troubling you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktf Posted June 26, 2012 Report Share Posted June 26, 2012 It's Question 4 that has riled me. I can't see how anyone could square this with a Community Group membership. For years now St Mirren have been seen as the opposition to many grass root clubs. The perception has been that St Mirren made a grab for cash from every community initiative going, that St Mirren have become less and less supportive and helpful to grassroots clubs (for example now charging for signed balls and shirts), and their pro youth side is seen as predatory amongst several grass roots sides. Then there is the CIC proposal which on the face of it looks like a really good bridge, promoted with the idea of mutual benefits for the community group, SMFC and the CIC......and now we have Question 4 where in essence 80% of the membership are now saying that those community groups who have signed up should give SMFC £120 per annum in return for absolutely nothing over the first year. Question 4 IMO just proves that the CIC is more of the same old St Mirren I'm afraid and if there is an attempt to draw money from those groups, with ownership being delayed for a year then I'm out. I can't back a Community Interest Company that is interested in grabbing even more cash from community groups and charities to prop up an ailing SPL football club that can't work within its budgets! I have said "yes" to Q4 on my personal membership. I'll be saying no for my community group membership - for exactly the reasons you state. 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.