Jump to content

Time To Revive Community Ownership ?


div
 Share

Recommended Posts

The only way it could be achievable would be asking the consortium to consider taking payment over around 4 years.

To do this we would need to increase the members from approx 1000 to 2000 or increase payment from £10 to £20 a month. I think £20 is more achievable than 2000 members.

1000 x £20 for 48 months would give the consortium £960,000.

Any better offers on the table?

Nae crap about who gets the revenue from a packet of crisps at a function. All money stays in the club. Job done.

i'd go as far as to say their should be no involvement from any fans group in develeoping the void to create a match day bar, this would involve employing and paying staff and would distract from the main purpose which is to purchase the majority consortiums shares.

the money should come from pledges and not from any match day bar - which could actually end up being run at a loss, there is also of course the cost involved in setting up such a venture - £100k was mentioned as a cost for this iirc from the last project

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Guest somner9

If recent history has taught us anything then hopefully it is to ask first and foremost... Do we actually want fan ownership? and then answer the question/debate the reasons why it's 'Yay or Nay"

The hole (intentional typo) 10000 hours debacle highlighted for me that 'The Fans' did not initate or promote the concept! That was all done by a collection of outsiders with Fitzy shoved up front to try and sweeten/validate the concept.

Think back..? I don't remember a call amongst the support to identify a group of people not previoulsy known to the support to be the proposers, leaders and designers of where OUR club should go.

Start from the begining, seek the answers of what the support/community actually want before delivering it as fait accompli.

That for me was the biggest mistake last time round, and what eventually did for the fans enthusiasm (leaving aside the failure to deliver one single piece of promised external funding).

My twopenneth, for what it's worth remains as was. SGG and the consortium (who's wish it is) need to consult the fan base/community/businesses/funders etc and then lay out a road map that will take us to fan ownership, whilst over a period of time letting them realise the value of their shares (which aint £4m).

At Motherwell with an additional £1m expected from the fans just to get to stage two you can see that it's sadly doomed to failure!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only way it could be achievable would be asking the consortium to consider taking payment over around 4 years.

To do this we would need to increase the members from approx 1000 to 2000 or increase payment from £10 to £20 a month. I think £20 is more achievable than 2000 members.

1000 x £20 for 48 months would give the consortium £960,000.

Any better offers on the table?

Nae crap about who gets the revenue from a packet of crisps at a function. All money stays in the club. Job done.

I'd even question a valuation of £960,000 to be honest.

One of the most bizarre things that happened during the period of the 10000hours bid was that the sellers of the majority shareholding in the club were happy to meet those funding the purchase of the shares to tell them that if Rangers weren't kept in the SPL the business would be in real financial trouble, possibly administration, within 3 months. Then weeks later they reject a bid of £1.25m on the grounds that it wasn't enough. If you were buying a house and the vendor told you that if the wind blows in a certain direction it will fall down would you not deem the property worthless? Why should a football club be any different? At least when David Murray recognised the problems at Ibrox he sold it on for £1.

The club clearly isn't about to fold but if the vendor really does believe that the clubs financial future is resting on TV deals that revolve around Celtic and Rangers then surely that precarious situation has to be reflected in the valuation of the majority shareholding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If recent history has taught us anything then hopefully it is to ask first and foremost... Do we actually want fan ownership? and then answer the question/debate the reasons why it's 'Yay or Nay"

The hole (intentional typo) 10000 hours debacle highlighted for me that 'The Fans' did not initate or promote the concept! That was all done by a collection of outsiders with Fitzy shoved up front to try and sweeten/validate the concept.

Think back..? I don't remember a call amongst the support to identify a group of people not previoulsy known to the support to be the proposers, leaders and designers of where OUR club should go.

Start from the begining, seek the answers of what the support/community actually want before delivering it as fait accompli.

That for me was the biggest mistake last time round, and what eventually did for the fans enthusiasm (leaving aside the failure to deliver one single piece of promised external funding).

My twopenneth, for what it's worth remains as was. SGG and the consortium (who's wish it is) need to consult the fan base/community/businesses/funders etc and then lay out a road map that will take us to fan ownership, whilst over a period of time letting them realise the value of their shares (which aint £4m).

At Motherwell with an additional £1m expected from the fans just to get to stage two you can see that it's sadly doomed to failure!

there is a thing called a monkey survey which is free ,could div set this up with options ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd even question a valuation of £960,000 to be honest.

One of the most bizarre things that happened during the period of the 10000hours bid was that the sellers of the majority shareholding in the club were happy to meet those funding the purchase of the shares to tell them that if Rangers weren't kept in the SPL the business would be in real financial trouble, possibly administration, within 3 months. Then weeks later they reject a bid of £1.25m on the grounds that it wasn't enough. If you were buying a house and the vendor told you that if the wind blows in a certain direction it will fall down would you not deem the property worthless? Why should a football club be any different? At least when David Murray recognised the problems at Ibrox he sold it on for £1.

The club clearly isn't about to fold but if the vendor really does believe that the clubs financial future is resting on TV deals that revolve around Celtic and Rangers then surely that precarious situation has to be reflected in the valuation of the majority shareholding.

I think this is a fair point in some respects, Stuart, but the reality is that the consortium can value their shares as they choose.

The use of the term 'valuation' is probably not entirely helpful in any event. This implies that the club (majority shareholding) is being sold in a market where it is possible to compare and contrast worth in a pretty straightforward manner - ie: like the housing market, to a degree. In such a market, it is easier to set a valuation based on what similar properties/assets are being sold for, projected value (ie - in investment terms), and other prevailing factors such as supply and demand etc. Whilst I appreciate that these factors do apply to some degree in terms of the sale of a football club, I would suggest that it is much more difficult to define value, as such, as benchmarking is far from straightforward.

Rather than talking about valuation, I'd imagine the consortium would be more inclined to regard any sale as being based on what they would be willing to accept for their shares. There is a (admittedly somewhat subtle though significant) distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is a fair point in some respects, Stuart, but the reality is that the consortium can value their shares as they choose.

The use of the term 'valuation' is probably not entirely helpful in any event. This implies that the club (majority shareholding) is being sold in a market where it is possible to compare and contrast worth in a pretty straightforward manner - ie: like the housing market, to a degree. In such a market, it is easier to set a valuation based on what similar properties/assets are being sold for, projected value (ie - in investment terms), and other prevailing factors such as supply and demand etc. Whilst I appreciate that these factors do apply to some degree in terms of the sale of a football club, I would suggest that it is much more difficult to define value, as such, as benchmarking is far from straightforward.

Rather than talking about valuation, I'd imagine the consortium would be more inclined to regard any sale as being based on what they would be willing to accept for their shares. There is a (admittedly somewhat subtle though significant) distinction.

True Drew - but the shares are still only worth what a buyer will pay for them. To use the housing analogy again I can value my house at £2m and I can say I won't sell for any less. That's all well and good while I want to live here, but if I want to sell up I'd have to get far more realistic about the price. Now if the fans or the community are the prospective buyer then they have to be careful not to pay much more than anyone else would - otherwise the fans are simply being ripped off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

The Trouble With Fan Ownership.... (as Denis Norden might have said?)

Is reflected in stark clarity with the debacle surrounding Hearts. Since last November the Hearts fans (who want ownership) have rallied round and put circa £2m into the club over and above ST's, Match tickets, hospitality etc.... Which entitles them to..?

Nothing!

In fact the club and support hold no real assets at all (if their players were worth something, someone would have bought them).

Presumably with £2m raised by saints fans we would be owners of SMFC? So when the Hearts thing is eventually sorted someone (running a football club or not) will buy the assets (Tynecastle) and presumably the Administrators will try to sell the 'Goodwill' (i.e. the club minus anything of worth) to the fans?

You can see why fans don't make good business people, chipping in £2m for nowt, only to be left with an additional bill just to buy the name!

I would call on the selling consortium to think again about trying to saddle a fans group who may well make poor decisions with an unmanageable debt/obligation (I.e. The Well society).

The whole of Ipox, training ground, players, huge fanbase etc was sold for £4.5m to one of only two bidders. So what does that in reality make SMFC worth?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

I think the paucity of debate sums up the current appetite for fan ownership at SMFC

'What Do We Want?'

'Fan Ownership!'

'When Do We Want It?'

'T.B.A..!'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good posts above. My enthusiasm for fan ownership of St.Mirren certainly took a battering during the 10000hours bid process, particularly when other fans started to question my personal integrity. The "what's in it for you" politics put me off getting involved with anything like it again, at least for the very forseeable future.

The goings on at Dundee didn't help much either, where it looked like the fans were in civil war at one point.

The flip side of all of that though is that I'd much rather know that the club was held in trust by those who hold it dearest. The thought of a Craig Whyte or a Vladminir Romanov coming in and taking us to the wall is more terrifying than either of the issues outlined above.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe in time circumstances will change and Gordon might make an offer again. That would be a decent result IMO but obviously his valuation and that of the selling consortium were at different poles when he first made his offer some 3 years ago now.

As to Somner's point "what do the fans want" I'd wager most actually are reasonably happy with the status quo but as I have previously said, that is not a long term option as far as I can see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

Some good posts above. My enthusiasm for fan ownership of St.Mirren certainly took a battering during the 10000hours bid process, particularly when other fans started to question my personal integrity. The "what's in it for you" politics put me off getting involved with anything like it again, at least for the very forseeable future.

The goings on at Dundee didn't help much either, where it looked like the fans were in civil war at one point.

The flip side of all of that though is that I'd much rather know that the club was held in trust by those who hold it dearest. The thought of a Craig Whyte or a Vladminir Romanov coming in and taking us to the wall is more terrifying than either of the issues outlined above.

I don't know what the answer is. Maybe in time circumstances will change and Gordon might make an offer again. That would be a decent result IMO but obviously his valuation and that of the selling consortium were at different poles when he first made his offer some 3 years ago now.

As to Somner's point "what do the fans want" I'd wager most actually are reasonably happy with the status quo but as I have previously said, that is not a long term option as far as I can see.

Re the bit in bold. even with last year's 'armageddon scenario' enough could not be convinced to sign up to fan ownership! I'll say it again the only way to effect it in times of relative financial stability would be for the Bod/Consortium to lay out the road map to fan ownership over a realistic timeframe, without making the support liable for a huge debt.

It can be done, it has been done by others who 'Re-tiled' the roof when the sun was shining!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to think of myself as an 'ordinary fan'. A fan who on his own, or even with a smallish group of St Mirren minded friends, couldn't launch a takeover bid in a million years, unless a double-rollover winning lottery ticket happened. However, here's my problem. The thought of a group of people just like me actually being in charge of St Mirren gives me the shits. As much as I have my head screwed on (generally!), the prospect of the likes of myself being in a position of even approaching power scares the crap out of me. I'd be a disaster as an owner of St Mirren.

So, any 'fan ownership' in my opinion, needs able and strong figureheads at the sharp end, to be the focus of the 'fan takeover'.

Where they might be is the sixty-four thousand dollar question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the bit in bold. even with last year's 'armageddon scenario' enough could not be convinced to sign up to fan ownership! I'll say it again the only way to effect it in times of relative financial stability would be for the Bod/Consortium to lay out the road map to fan ownership over a realistic timeframe, without making the support liable for a huge debt.

It can be done, it has been done by others who 'Re-tiled' the roof when the sun was shining!

A fine concept, can't see it happening though.

I'm sure at some point a buyer will make a suitable offer and have the credentials to succeed in taking over the club.

At that point we will just need to roll the dice and see if it turns out well or not. As usual if it goes tits up it will be the fans who will be asked to pick up the pieces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to think of myself as an 'ordinary fan'. A fan who on his own, or even with a smallish group of St Mirren minded friends, couldn't launch a takeover bid in a million years, unless a double-rollover winning lottery ticket happened. However, here's my problem. The thought of a group of people just like me actually being in charge of St Mirren gives me the shits. As much as I have my head screwed on (generally!), the prospect of the likes of myself being in a position of even approaching power scares the crap out of me. I'd be a disaster as an owner of St Mirren.

So, any 'fan ownership' in my opinion, needs able and strong figureheads at the sharp end, to be the focus of the 'fan takeover'.

Where they might be is the sixty-four thousand dollar question.

The guys that have run the club for the last decade and more are fans, let's not forget that.

There are plenty of successful local business people who support St.Mirren. It might actually be easier getting 50 of them to part with £20k each to deliver the club into fan ownership to be honest !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

A fine concept, can't see it happening though.

I'm sure at some point a buyer will make a suitable offer and have the credentials to succeed in taking over the club.

At that point we will just need to roll the dice and see if it turns out well or not. As usual if it goes tits up it will be the fans who will be asked to pick up the pieces.

If anyone pays more than £1m of their own money (not borrowed against the club/assets) for it (fans excluded) I'd be amazed!

They struggled to sell Sevco for £4.5m even with it's assets and revenue generating potential.

SG clearly ststed they would like to see the club delivered to fan ownership! So they should make it happen!

Edited by somner9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guys that have run the club for the last decade and more are fans, let's not forget that.

There are plenty of successful local business people who support St.Mirren. It might actually be easier getting 50 of them to part with £20k each to deliver the club into fan ownership to be honest !

Indeed - the current BoD are fans - fans though with the means to launch their own takeover bid back in the day, which I don't think is what we mean when we speak in 2013 about the club going into 'fan ownership'. We don't mean SG & Co being replaced by maybe 5 or 6 new people... it's broad-based fan ownership we mean, no?

How to achieve that is very difficult. The 10000hours bid had merit in that regard, but proved to be fatally flawed. I agree with you - the more likely scenario now is for some consortium to come forward who are deemed 'fit and proper' by SG & Co, and they become the 'new SG & Co.' Whether any new consortium of business owners have any desire to see fan ownership as part of their bid is anyone's guess. They (understandably) might want to come in and run the club as it has been by the current BoD. The 'traditional' ownership model. If there is any interested group of St Mirren minded business owners who are fit and proper, and can meet SG & Co's asking price, and have the means to take the club forward a notch, and are willing to put their heads above a parapet that will see them shot at.... they are keeping pretty quiet about it.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guys that have run the club for the last decade and more are fans, let's not forget that.

There are plenty of successful local business people who support St.Mirren. It might actually be easier getting 50 of them to part with £20k each to deliver the club into fan ownership to be honest !

That's exactly th

If anyone pays more than £1m of their own money (not borrowed against the club/assets) for it (fans excluded) I'd be amazed!

They struggled to sell Sevco for £4.5m even with it's assets and revenue generating potential.

SG clearly ststed they would like to see the club delivered to fan ownership! So they should make it happen!

The thing with Rangers was the amount of baggage that potentially went along with them. It's easy to sit now and say that Green or whoever got a bargain but that was far from clear last year. Even now, there is still some doubt about whether Ibrox and Murray Park might not be sold from under their feet. Doesn't look as likely as it did at one time but who knows what further evidence of shenanigans might crawl out of the woodwork. What about Ticketus? At least we know more or less what we would be getting for our £1-5m. or whatever if fans buy the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

That's exactly th

The thing with Rangers was the amount of baggage that potentially went along with them. It's easy to sit now and say that Green or whoever got a bargain but that was far from clear last year. Even now, there is still some doubt about whether Ibrox and Murray Park might not be sold from under their feet. Doesn't look as likely as it did at one time but who knows what further evidence of shenanigans might crawl out of the woodwork. What about Ticketus? At least we know more or less what we would be getting for our £1-5m. or whatever if fans buy the club.

Take your point, however as far as I am aware no one! has offered to pay the consortium's asking price for their 51% out of their own pocket!

So it's only worth what someone will pay for it, and that is obviously less than £1.5m, otherwise....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha ! Thanks for the kinds words mate !

I've no desire whatsoever to get involved again, once bitten twice shy and all that.

I will quite happily fill out a direct debit and put my money in to any fans bid but I'm not getting involved any more than that.

There lies the answer, a fans buy out is dead and needs to RIP.

Reading most of the posts the people that backed it would be extremely reluctant to back it again. The fans that worked their buts off trying to gain support for it were at times heckled and given unwarranted abuse by some who were happy to stand back and criticise all their efforts.

We now have people like div not wanting involved again. Time to move on I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i would suggest that the likelyhood of the large proportion of fans who pledged money to the previous project will mostly be reluctant to engage in such a venture again, but obviously i don't know for sure, and i'm not sure it would actually work as there would be too many differing views,leading to splits and pledges being withdrawn.

a group of like minded people or a single person who would be willing to buy the shares,( preferably they would be people with smfc at heart ) is the best we could hope for - unless someone can convince me otherwise of course.

a group of four saints fans with the support and financial backing from their own individual friends and acquaintances possibly ?

.

Edited by buddiecat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read through the thread and It takes me back to my utopian Ideology of what the club could achieve under 10000hrs. I was wrong and the plan was flawed although Richard Atkinson remains a man of great integrity who also wished for the best. I had no intention of being put forward to the BOD and I'm sure the vast majority were the same.,,,,, Now what if we could buy the assets of the club ?....The stadium, the training ground?........Setting up D/D for the purpose of owning the ground?......This could provide the current shareholders with some income and allow them to sell the club at a future date?.......Let's say £1M for the assets and £500,000 for the club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I think this thread is a sad commentary on the state of the club. With 52% of shares bonded together for sale to a single majority shareholder you would think there would be some alarm, especially since majority shareholders at other SPL clubs have brought about huge debt, administration and even liquidation. But no. At St Mirren the support are all standing around hoping that someone with a bit of money will stump up the cash for those shares and they trust Gilmour and Co to ensure they don't get "duped" into selling to the wrong person despite the obvious conflict of interest.

For all the online posturing not one willing leader has emerged. No-one apparently has enough love for the club to put themselves forward, and a major reason for that is because they know that if they do there will be a pack of hyenas waiting to smear them at every turn. Even the two groups that are supposed to represent "fans" of the club aren't interested or capable of galvanising the support to make a bid. And all this despite the fact that Richard Atkinson and 10000hours managed to garner enough support to put together a bid even though the plan was deemed flawed by many.

I'd like to see someone revisit the initial plan for the CIC and stick to the pure principles that were initially outlined, with one member one vote - no elevated voting rights for any individual and with room for a community membership with clearly defined benefits in return for a membership fee. There shouldn't be any need for grants from any source, cause 52% of a business that doesn't turn a profit isn't worth much at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest somner9

I think a reality check is required re the 10000hours fiasco!

It died and sunk from sight three times!

Seance's were held to attempt to communicate with it

It failed to deliver on one single piece of outside funding or investment it assured all and sundry was in the bag!

It then became an unseemgly vehicle to allow GLS to flog his shares too!

The one thing it wasn't... was a fan ownership iniative, set up by fans!

Edited by somner9
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...