Jump to content

div

Statement From 10000Hours

Recommended Posts


Stating the bleedin' obvious I know, but the statement is pretty much what I expected, except of course for the clear reference to the major backers - which goes against what the selling consortium seem to be suggesting was the case.

Obviously a difference of opinion - were the major backers wavering or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

Main point of contention?......Bod say funders had doubts...REA said they did not....Anyone know for sure?

As they were no other "Funders/Backers" than the fans Did the Bod mean the 'Fans'?

Or the third parties ramsacking the void for their own ends?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stating the bleedin' obvious I know, but the statement is pretty much what I expected, except of course for the clear reference to the major backers - which goes against what the selling consortium seem to be suggesting was the case.

Obviously a difference of opinion - were the major backers wavering or not?

Main point of contention?......Bod say funders had doubts...REA said they did not....Anyone know for sure?

Yup - clocked that when I received the email on my phone about 10 minutes ago.

Who to believe? Does it matter now in any event?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As they were no other "Funders/Backers" than the fans Did the Bod mean the 'Fans'?

Or the third parties ramsacking the void for their own ends?

Huh?

I think you might have stumbled on here by accident en route to the dogging thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

Huh?

I think you might have stumbled on here by accident en route to the dogging thread.

You know there is one and where it is!

Come on ffs surely you can do better than that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup - clocked that when I received the email on my phone about 10 minutes ago.

Who to believe? Does it matter now in any event?

I think It does as we can all move on to whatever with the real story of the failed bid put to bed. Truth Is always helpful to know and I speak as a fan who accepts the Bod decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup - clocked that when I received the email on my phone about 10 minutes ago.

Who to believe? Does it matter now in any event?

I believe it matters - for the reasons I have stated in other posts - From both sides, the selling consortium and 10000hours, they engaged with supporters over a lengthy period, so unless their attitude is that they'll only engage with us when they want us for something, they need to let us know why we're back to square one. If the selling consortium had merely engaged in confidential talks with interested outside parties, with no fan involvement, then if those talks broke down with no sale - they'd owe us nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

I believe it matters - for the reasons I have stated in other posts - From both sides, the selling consortium and 10000hours, they engaged with supporters over a lengthy period, so unless their attitude is that they'll only engage with us when they want us for something, they need to let us know why we're back to square one. If the selling consortium had merely engaged in confidential talks with interested outside parties, with no fan involvement, then if those talks broke down with no sale - they'd owe us nothing.

I thought they (sellers) were quite clear 10000 hours much changed, unsustainable, poorly backed bid was mince! You can ask them to enlarge on that, but I suspect they'll tell you more of the same "That dog wasn't going to hunt" so they choked it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they (sellers) were quite clear 10000 hours much changed, unsustainable, poorly backed bid was mince! You can ask them to enlarge on that, but I suspect they'll tell you more of the same "That dog wasn't going to hunt" so they choked it.

Or, they want more money. Or, they still have issues with GLS. Or....

You tell me, cos' I'm in the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

Or, they want more money. Or, they still have issues with GLS. Or....

You tell me, cos' I'm in the dark.

I don't read they want more money, I read they suspected that the bid (maintaining contributions and repayments to the sellers, and Big issue, whilst running a football that hits cashflow issues) was too risky to put the financial future of the club in jeopardy. I think they tried to say that kindly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't read they want more money, I read they suspected that the bid (maintaining contributions and repayments to the sellers, and Big issue, whilst running a football that hits cashflow issues) was too risky to put the financial future of the club in jeopardy. I think they tried to say that kindly

After numerous proposals the Consortium of majority shareholders in St Mirren Football Club Limited (SMFC) has decided that in the best interests of SMFC they are unable to accept the final offer from the 10000 Hours group.

The longer this went on and with the numerous changes that were made to the proposals it appeared that most of the 10000 Hours’ major backers seemed to be having doubts about the concept. It became clear that it appeared to be becoming more difficult for the 10000 Hours Board to come up with an appropriate offer which would have given confidence to the selling Consortium that their proposals were sustainable.

Somner - here's the opening of the selling consortium's statement, in which they clearly state their concern about the major backers - a claim which is absolutely refuted in today's 10000hours statement:

We would like to make it clear that none of our major backers had any doubts about the concept.

I'm not taking the side of either the selling consortium, or 10000hours - I'm just looking at one side saying one thing as a reason for ending it, while the other side has obviously deliberately chosen to pour cold water on what the selling consortium are saying.

Way too much whataboutery going on in our boardroom for my liking.

Edited by pozbaird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

After numerous proposals the Consortium of majority shareholders in St Mirren Football Club Limited (SMFC) has decided that in the best interests of SMFC they are unable to accept the final offer from the 10000 Hours group.

The longer this went on and with the numerous changes that were made to the proposals it appeared that most of the 10000 Hours’ major backers seemed to be having doubts about the concept. It became clear that it appeared to be becoming more difficult for the 10000 Hours Board to come up with an appropriate offer which would have given confidence to the selling Consortium that their proposals were sustainable.

Somner - here's the opening of the selling consortium's statement, in which they clearly state their concern about the major backers - a claim which is absolutely refuted in today's 10000hours statement:

We would like to make it clear that none of our major backers had any doubts about the concept.

I'm not taking the side of either the selling consortium, or 10000hours - I'm just looking at one side saying one thing as a reason for ending it, while the other side has obviously deliberately chosen to pour cold water on what the selling consortium are saying.

Way too much whataboutery going on in our boardroom for my liking.

My opinion is the sellers saw the pure debt involved for the Cic having to pay back The Big Issue, and make their payments to the sellers as unsustainable whilst trying to run a club that does not generate a surplus. I believe the sellers thought the club would be at risk if the CiC couldn't maintain it's repayments, and the sellers would have to decide if they were going to let the club fold! or take control again at a significant additional cost as well as never seeing the selling funds agreed.

Now the BoD's statement about major backer's I read in conjunction with the statement released recently by 10000 hours saying they had been back to re-assure said backers AGAIN!

This compounded with if the Cic hit one bump, all the wheels would come off as it has to pay massive debt, run a club that costs, doesn't generate money, and the backers seeking further re-assurance led the sellers to conclude the risk to the future of SMFC was too high to take.

all the he said/she said stuff doesn't matter. what matters is 10000 hours could not convice the sellers they had a plan that was affordable, sustainable and one that could see the club move forward. remember 10000 hours ahs no means of generating income, how would they deal with a monetary problem at the club if they were in charge?

they would have to make cuts, this would reduce the capabilty of the playing staff, reduce income as fans would drop off, and see Cic members cancel their contributions. It is to my knowledge the bid received that proposed to stack the highest amount of debt on the CiC and by association the clubs back. and for that reason and the lack of confidence they could sustain at least the status quo the sellers pulled the plug.

for that at least they are to be commended, could you imagine the feeling that your (as in us) fan bid was what actually pulled the club down?

time to move on, but i repeat the BoD now need to set up a process to pass the reins on in a way that does not leave an unmanageble debt behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is the sellers saw the pure debt involved for the Cic having to pay back The Big Issue, and make their payments to the sellers as unsustainable whilst trying to run a club that does not generate a surplus.

all the he said/she said stuff doesn't matter.

Point one - I'm not seeking your opinion on their statement, any more than I am offering mine. Again, look at the two opposing statements in bold. Now, I'll hold my hands up and stand accused of all sorts - but all I'm doing here is asking the question, without favour to one side or the other. What's the reason for the completely differing stories. During the Rangers debacle, we accused Rangers supporters of not asking hard enough questions about Murray, or Whyte. It's important because as supporters, we are trusting the selling consortium to sell the club to the right people for the right reasons, and three years down the line all we have is a scheme that has crashed and burned, and after three years the two main players won't agree on what day of the week it is.

We should all be asking questions. Of both parties involved.

Edited by pozbaird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is the sellers saw the pure debt involved for the Cic having to pay back The Big Issue, and make their payments to the sellers as unsustainable whilst trying to run a club that does not generate a surplus. I believe the sellers thought the club would be at risk if the CiC couldn't maintain it's repayments, and the sellers would have to decide if they were going to let the club fold! or take control again at a significant additional cost as well as never seeing the selling funds agreed.

Now the BoD's statement about major backer's I read in conjunction with the statement released recently by 10000 hours saying they had been back to re-assure said backers AGAIN!

This compounded with if the Cic hit one bump, all the wheels would come off as it has to pay massive debt, run a club that costs, doesn't generate money, and the backers seeking further re-assurance led the sellers to conclude the risk to the future of SMFC was too high to take.

all the he said/she said stuff doesn't matter. what matters is 10000 hours could not convice the sellers they had a plan that was affordable, sustainable and one that could see the club move forward. remember 10000 hours ahs no means of generating income, how would they deal with a monetary problem at the club if they were in charge?

they would have to make cuts, this would reduce the capabilty of the playing staff, reduce income as fans would drop off, and see Cic members cancel their contributions. It is to my knowledge the bid received that proposed to stack the highest amount of debt on the CiC and by association the clubs back. and for that reason and the lack of confidence they could sustain at least the status quo the sellers pulled the plug.

for that at least they are to be commended, could you imagine the feeling that your (as in us) fan bid was what actually pulled the club down?

time to move on, but i repeat the BoD now need to set up a process to pass the reins on in a way that does not leave an unmanageble debt behind.

I've agreed with a lot of the stuff you've said Somner, but not the above. The CIC put in an offer and were asked to go away and come back with a better one. The BOD already knew everything they needed to about the funders, Big Issue etc. Nothing was changed over the past year in regards to that, so if they were never sure, why let it run all this time? The bid was supposed to be £1.5m before the Rangers thing, then it was £1.25 afterwards, so the CIC addressed the situation of not having the same income, yet it still isnn't good enough?

I've never been one for the CIC, I thought it was unsustainable from the word go. But the Board have publicly backed it, until now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The funders involved in the development of the Void remained completely behind the project. Gordon visited them all two weeks ago to verify the position and they remained 100% behind the project.

Big Issue Invest did advise that they would have to go through their due diligence process again before re-approving (or otherwise) their £500K loan. This was perfectly understandable given that the event which had passed over the summer (namely Rangers moving to division 3) was expected (according to the club) to be an event which could potentially put the club into administration.

Some of the major commercial contracts in the SPL were revised as part of that scenario coming to pass, and BII wanted visibility of the revised financial forecasts as a result of that before they could commit to their part of the funding.

That process had began and there was no reason to think there would have been any problem as the financial re-projections the club had provided were pretty sound.

Of course the main backer and funder of the project was the St.Mirren fans themselves. At our peak we had £11,540 in monthly commitments and even this morning that figure stood at £10980 despite the long gap in between, a drop off of just 5%.

All moot now but thems the facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but i repeat the BoD now need to set up a process to pass the reins on in a way that does not leave an unmanageble debt behind.

One of the more attractive aspects of the CIC deal was that the debt was not secured on the club itself.

As has been mentioned before, anybody who comes in to buy the club will almost certainly do so by securing a loan on the football club to pay for the shares. It's cheaper to do that even if you have the £2million in your pocket.

Practically the only way that the Consortium could avoid leaving any debt behind would be to give the club away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest somner9

One of the more attractive aspects of the CIC deal was that the debt was not secured on the club itself.

As has been mentioned before, anybody who comes in to buy the club will almost certainly do so by securing a loan on the football club to pay for the shares. It's cheaper to do that even if you have the £2million in your pocket.

Practically the only way that the Consortium could avoid leaving any debt behind would be to give the club away.

You're fundementally wrong and its a point that exposed 10000 hours naivety. If the Cic had become the majority shareholder of SMFC (52%) then by law if the cic went into administration and liquidation, as the parent company of SMFC the liquidator would look to settle the debt using the assets of SMFC as the cic would effectively have none of its own.

So Cic debt would have been SMFC debt. Now where do you think the Cic would be able to liquidate assets if it failed to maintain its repayments???

What do you think the BII were securing their 500k loan against? What possible assets? yes thats right as Div has spelled out above the income and revenue streams of SMFC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one thing Is for sure. When the 1000d/ds get shreaded in the next few days there will never be a time when they get resurrected by any future bid from anyone. With this In mind I think 10000hrs should remove the bid now and not leave it forever floating around In fresh air. Whether for good or bad today spells the end for SMFC ever having a chance of fan ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just love how Somner9 now views the constorium as the saviours of St Mirren protecting it from the instability that would have been caused by 10000hours paying £1.25m for the purchase of the club - whilst conveniently forgetting that it is the members of the consortium who would have created the debt through their desire to fill their pockets with money.

DS10 is correct - the only way the BODs can avoid a new owner starting off by putting the club into debt is to do a John Boyle and give the shares away. They are worthless anyway so they should just get on with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...