Jump to content

Statement From 10000Hours


div
 Share

Recommended Posts


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.

I have to disagree with that part, shares are worth what someone is willing to pay, given that the current owners have just rejected an offer of £1.25m the shares are worth at least that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

The CIC would have had assets, the 52% share of St Mirren. Which could have been sold to pay back the debt.

I don't think the liquidators would have had direct access to SMFC funds. The CIC and SMFC were different companies.

I own some shares in St. Mirren. If I go bankrupt will the club have to sell the stadium to pay off my debts? Doesn't seem very likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to disagree with that part, shares are worth what someone is willing to pay, given that the current owners have just rejected an offer of £1.25m the shares are worth at least that much.

Indeed, and one would have to assume that the consortium believe they are worth more (they certainly did 3 years ago) having just knocked 10000Hours back.

The reason I don't think there is a great deal to be achieved in pressing for greater clarity surrounding the conflicting statements as regards the 10000Hours financial backers, is because I'm not confident that anything that would be offered would provide clarity. Why not? Well, because I'm not sure that I'd believe it.

This is conjecture on my part, granted, but I believe that the consortium finally knocked back 10000Hours because they feel they can get more money for their shares. For me, they can dress up their decision to reject the final offer of £1.25M all they want, but I'm not sure that I would take this with anything more than a pinch of salt.

As for the 10000Hours position, I'm sure they would maintain that they had solid backing for their bid. TBH, I imagine they genuinely believed that they did have, as I'm unsure as to what they would be looking to achienve in pressing ahead with the bid without this.

For me, it is about money, egos and personalities. Hey, that's show business after all!

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIC would have had assets, the 52% share of St Mirren. Which could have been sold to pay back the debt.

I don't think the liquidators would have had direct access to SMFC funds. The CIC and SMFC were different companies.

I own some shares in St. Mirren. If I go bankrupt will the club have to sell the stadium to pay off my debts? Doesn't seem very likely.

You and the company (CiC) that sought to takoever 52% shareholding in SMFC are completely different entities. The CiC was to be the parent company of SMFC, the companyis libel not the individuals (see scumco)

We saw with scumco the shares in administration and liquidation are worthless, the only thing of value is the tangible assets, (Ground, training ground, players, fitting and fixtures) that is what would be sold by an administrator/liquidator... i.e. SMFC

Link to comment
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.

The statement from 10000 hrs is fairly typical of all that has gone before. No detail whatsoever. £1.25M over 3 years is nowhere near the full picture. No information about how the deal was structured, the capital / debt ratios, zilch about how they would manage cashflow issues, and f"k aw about what would happen if they didn't keep up the payments to Bii - remember there was a long list of conditions on that loan alone we didn't get to see. They have provided no update on the number of 87 club and 1877 club members.

For them to leave a note about the bid being left open is pathetic and as reborn saint points out completely unworkable as the baw is well and truly burst along with some supporters' reputations.

The bid was rejected because it the business plan was not strong enough to sustain the club let alone develop it. The club would be at risk I can't think of one supporter that would want that to happen.

Time to knock all the speculation on the head and move on.

Time to get behind the club again and stop the devisive nonsense that has blighted the support during what has been a great time for us on the pitch.

When I realised it wasn't going to work and would put the club at risk I was just as disappointed as I'm sure some of you are feeling now. We dodged a potentially fatal bullet for the club and given a wee bit of time that will be realised by even the most ardent supporters of the club.

Let it go and move on. We have the best team we've had in donkey's years. Let's get back to being football supporters and enjoy the good times while they last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bud, you are coming across as increasingly paranoid, no one is criticising you for the failure of 10k hours.

Well, not directly.....................

Only kidding :)

Surely it's reasonable to ask someone to expand on a post like the one that Sid has made ?

He can't be allowed to hide behind his shite forever, so let's have it out.

Name names John, let's be having it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it's reasonable to ask someone to expand on a post like the one that Sid has made ?

He can't be allowed to hide behind his shite forever, so let's have it out.

Name names John, let's be having it.

Div, hes a sad lonely who is unhappy 10000 hours is over, cos that entertained his sad existence, better ignored, hes nothing more than a wimpering coward,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Div, hes a sad lonely who is unhappy 10000 hours is over, cos that entertained his sad existence, better ignored, hes nothing more than a wimpering coward,

Quite agree, which is why I want to end this snivelling campaign of his right now.

Franky, I'm fed up with him getting away with his snide allegations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bud, you are coming across as increasingly paranoid, no one is criticising you for the failure of 10k hours.

Well, not directly.....................

Only kidding smile.png

Quite......it will be better for those concerned to make their own apology. Forcing it would make any apology meaningless.

As soon as I realised that SMiSA had been right I made my apologies in public. I followed that up with an apology to the SMiSA chaps in person.

Big Fras was kind enough to send me an apology in a PM recently. No apology was needed; however it was gratefully accepted and I am sure we are both the better for it.

The fans who were "misled" don't need an apology from anyone - the plot failed. However, those involved will feel all the better for making a public apology.

The level of anger about my requests for a public apology from those that knew and cracked on misleading their fellow fans anyway might well tell its own story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite......it will be better for those concerned to make their own apology. Forcing it would make any apology meaningless.

As soon as I realised that SMiSA had been right I made my apologies in public. I followed that up with an apology to the SMiSA chaps in person.

Big Fras was kind enough to send me an apology in a PM recently. No apology was needed; however it was gratefully accepted and I am sure we are both the better for it.

The fans who were "misled" don't need an apology from anyone - the plot failed. However, those involved will feel all the better for making a public apology.

The level of anger about my requests for a public apology from those that knew and cracked on misleading their fellow fans anyway might well tell its own story.

FUD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite......it will be better for those concerned to make their own apology. Forcing it would make any apology meaningless.

As soon as I realised that SMiSA had been right I made my apologies in public. I followed that up with an apology to the SMiSA chaps in person.

Big Fras was kind enough to send me an apology in a PM recently. No apology was needed; however it was gratefully accepted and I am sure we are both the better for it.

The fans who were "misled" don't need an apology from anyone - the plot failed. However, those involved will feel all the better for making a public apology.

The level of anger about my requests for a public apology from those that knew and cracked on misleading their fellow fans anyway might well tell its own story.

As I suspected, pure and utter bullshit as per usual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I say div...it is up to those fans to make the apology themselves. Or they can opt to try and front it out. The rejection of the bid because it was unsustainable tells its own story. I knew it before the public meeting. I don't know all the fans that also knew it, but I certainly know some of them. Not my place to say.

SMiSA called 10000 hrs and were shot down for it. I tried to get 10000 hrs to provide more detail about the financial model and was ignored other than the presentation of some spurious FAQs. They opted to front it out to the last. I don't expect them to apologise - they will go away never to be seen again. I just think the fans that fronted it out with them would feel better if they 'fessed up and apologise. We all make mistakes. Easier to move on from our mistakes if we own up and apologise. flowers.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You and the company (CiC) that sought to takoever 52% shareholding in SMFC are completely different entities. The CiC was to be the parent company of SMFC, the companyis libel not the individuals (see scumco)

We saw with scumco the shares in administration and liquidation are worthless, the only thing of value is the tangible assets, (Ground, training ground, players, fitting and fixtures) that is what would be sold by an administrator/liquidator... i.e. SMFC

I like your posts.

However, I don't think you are correct in saying that the CIC would have been the parent company of St. Mirren FC.

The CIC would have owned 52% of the shares in St. Mirren FC. But St. Mirren FC wouldn't have been a subsidiary of the CIC.

The assets that the CIC would have owned would have been the shares in the club - not the assets of the club.

Like many others, I also own shares in St. Mirren FC. Why would the assets of something I own a share in have been sold off to pay the debts of someone else who also owns shares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your posts.

However, I don't think you are correct in saying that the CIC would have been the parent company of St. Mirren FC.

The CIC would have owned 52% of the shares in St. Mirren FC. But St. Mirren FC wouldn't have been a subsidiary of the CIC.

The assets that the CIC would have owned would have been the shares in the club - not the assets of the club.

Like many others, I also own shares in St. Mirren FC. Why would the assets of something I own a share in have been sold off to pay the debts of someone else who also owns shares?

Agreed....that's not where the risk lay. The assets were sort of protected by the CIC; however it was not quite the watertight scenario being painted in the marketing blah blah.

There was risk with Bii....we were never told the conditions of the loan. For me the biggest risk was to the club through the lack of cashflow available from 10000 hrs. If the CIC is in trouble what happens if SMFC were to hit problems such as those scaremongered by themselves. Even Bii weren't happy with 10000 hrs ability to manage a cashflow situation. It was highlighted prior to the bid being rejected. It was one of the areas 10000 hrs were asked to address. This was a concern before it transpired that the 1877 club had been a disaster and the 87 club fell well short of its target. The bid should never have been tabled as it had become a nonsense and the fans should not have been led on. The honourable thing to do would have been to bail out long before the last public meeting.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...