Jump to content

The Swiss : Is Club About To Be Sold ?


Lethal89

Recommended Posts

I'm very wary of any wealthy person wanting to buy a football club, we have all seen what happened with Mileson, Murray, Whyte. Romanov and countless others who have tried this ownership model. For me there are various scenarios that can play out

The new owner eventually becomes bored or fed up with the monopoly at the top of the league and sells up to someone else

The new owner tries to run the business in a sustainable way but the fans demand more and more investment in the team to keep the success going (as happened to Murray with Rangers)

The new owner is a liar like Whyte

The new owner goes bankrupt like Romanov

The new owner dies like Mileson

We had our chance to safeguard the club last year and we blew it, I now wouldn't blame the current owners for selling up but think we, as fans, should start getting ready for digging deep into our pockets to keep the club alive at some point in the future.

Who do you mean by 'we'?

Supporters certainly didn't blow it. Supporters as individuals backed the idea with their DD mandates in the numbers required. Individual supporters racked up to the multitude of meetings and asked questions, took on board amended proposals, and were seemingly (looking at what I believe were very few cancelled DD mandates) still willing to give it a go despite the length of time it was taking, the arguments, and the misgivings about some aspects of the overall plan.

If anyone 'blew it' it wasn't 'bums on seats' ST holders, or pay at the gate loyal fans. Whether you are glad it failed or sad it failed is now a moot point - during the time the process was still live, enough fans did back it, and stuck with it - certainly not the ones who blew anything.

Edit: Posted at the same time as Slash, without seeing his post.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites


At one of the presentations I think I described how after the first bid failed due to funding being withdrawn after it had been approved we did in fact look at doing it ourselves but the legal advice about the "rights of the minority" was exactly why we didnt but for slightly different reasons than the financial ones i posted earlier.

In our case, as you saw we were getting significant abuse (might not be the best word) both publically (all be it anonymously, although we knew who they were) and significant private interference with our funders. With this in mind if we privately owned 51% the same individuals could use the "rights of the minority" rules to cause further issues.

There was also a major conflict of interest potential as I would have been on both sides of the equation both buying the shares and selling the shares to the Fans CIC.

With this in mind and some other minor points the Legal advice at the time was not to proceed and regrettably when that is the advice you get that is what you have to do.

It was the time taken to explore all of this that caused the delay over that Christmas between the first bid and the restart of the second

Cheers for that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether there is any substance in the latest rumours is a moot point, but I think it is fair to assume that, during periods when things aren't going swimmingly in terms of on-field matters, and supporters are becoming increasingly agitated as a result, it must be tempting to lower the bar of scrutiny regarding any bids that might come in.

We've known for several years that the consortium members have wanted to down tools and that isn't at all unreasonable given what they invested in terms of finances, time, and personal resources into the club during their tenure. I'm sure the last thing they would be looking for is any additional pressure as is inevitably around during the current slump. Could this influence their thinking when it comes to the sale of their shares to any interested bidder? It's hard to imagine it wouldn't be a factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether there is any substance in the latest rumours is a moot point, but I think it is fair to assume that, during periods when things aren't going swimmingly in terms of on-field matters, and supporters are becoming increasingly agitated as a result, it must be tempting to lower the bar of scrutiny regarding any bids that might come in.

We've known for several years that the consortium members have wanted to down tools and that isn't at all unreasonable given what they invested in terms of finances, time, and personal resources into the club during their tenure. I'm sure the last thing they would be looking for is any additional pressure as is inevitably around during the current slump. Could this influence their thinking when it comes to the sale of their shares to any interested bidder? It's hard to imagine it wouldn't be a factor.

I wouldn't think so Drew. With things going badly on the field, I simply cannot see SG in particular effectively saying 'fcuk this for a lark' and choosing this moment to accept any old bid from anyone, simply to get out of the firing line.

Say what you like about our BoD - they have stuck with it for the long run. After all these years, yes, SG wants money, but I cannot believe for one minute he would choose this moment to lower the bar in regard to selling up. I genuinely believe the one thing he wouldn't knowingly do, would be to sell up to a dodgy looking new owner, and see his legacy flushed down the U bend.

I very much think the status quo will remain through this 'crisis' period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't think so Drew. With things going badly on the field, I simply cannot see SG in particular effectively saying 'fcuk this for a lark' and choosing this moment to accept any old bid from anyone, simply to get out of the firing line.

Say what you like about our BoD - they have stuck with it for the long run. After all these years, yes, SG wants money, but I cannot believe for one minute he would choose this moment to lower the bar in regard to selling up. I genuinely believe the one thing he wouldn't knowingly do, would be to sell up to a dodgy looking new owner, and see his legacy flushed down the U bend.

I very much think the status quo will remain through this 'crisis' period.

Don't get me wrong Paul, I'm not suggestng that they would sell to any charlatan who rolled up on the grounds that they're scunnered and have had enough. That said, it can't be easy being in charge of the club when you'd rather not be, while having the additional hassle of supporters calling for this, that, and the next thing in order to sort things out. Add to that the additional media scrutiny given the 'club in crisis' tag, and they could be forgiven for dropping their guard a bit - even if subconsciously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit rich coming from the leader of a bid that was relying for part of it's funding on the club's own assets - Corporate Membership schemes that were really glorified Hospitality Packages and developing The Void area. lol.gif

Not in the slightest bit true. If you had read and listened correctly to all the presentations you would have heard and read that "any assets used of the Club by the CIC would have been paid for" e.g any hospitality used by the CIC would have been paid for to the Club and if the Void had been used the Club would have

A. been able to use the new Space seling it and creating revenue

and

B the CIC would have paid the Club for the rental of the space on a commercial basis thus creating revenue for the club

One of the main points of the proposal was to use the Ownership model to increase the resources available to the Club for the Squad. So I totally dispute that the CIC in anyway set out to sell Stuff that was owned by the Club without paying fairly for it. The whole point of the law about the "rights of the minority" is that we legally understood that this is the way it had to be.

we could have come along and said "if you are a member you get discounts on season tickets and hospitality, (like Motherwells model)" but that seemed somewhat against the point of the process which was to get more money into the Club and build it up by being Cooperatively owned by the Community and Fans that love it the most

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decent post.

However I don't think its fair to say the fans blew it. The consortium did not want to accept the offer.

For all the good the current BoD have performed they have alienated shareholders with significant shareholding including Gordon Scott and SMiSA.

SMiSA have been trying for the last 8 years to invest in unissued shares and have been met with a wall of silence.

In May following a SMiSA AGM a new formal request was made to the BoD to purchase shares and that request remains unanswered as of last week. Obviously we expected a negative response given the ongoing sale of the club, but at the very least reply back to the SMiSA committee could have been forthcoming. Sadly no.

On the one hand the BoD needed a £50,000 interest free loan from SMiSA for help funding the Dome which was approved, yet on the other hand they completely ignore a written request. Why?

I admire all that the Consortium have done during their tenure. They have done a remarkable job, but they created that 51% majority for personal gain prior to the move to the new stadium.

It will be their decision alone as to who they sell to, and no doubt it will be said that "the fans had their chance....." but if you look beyond that there have been attempts by Saints supporters that have been rejected or ignored by the Consortium.

That's their business. They have made significant financial and personal sacrifices which I'm sure very few people on here would be willing or able to do.

For those sacrifices we should be forever grateful.

I agree we need some closure on the sale of the club.

I wish it had been someone with the energy and backing of the support like GS who has also been a supporter of the club.

Sadly that is not to be.

Who do you mean by 'we'?

Supporters certainly didn't blow it. Supporters as individuals backed the idea with their DD mandates in the numbers required. Individual supporters racked up to the multitude of meetings and asked questions, took on board amended proposals, and were seemingly (looking at what I believe were very few cancelled DD mandates) still willing to give it a go despite the length of time it was taking, the arguments, and the misgivings about some aspects of the overall plan.

If anyone 'blew it' it wasn't 'bums on seats' ST holders, or pay at the gate loyal fans. Whether you are glad it failed or sad it failed is now a moot point - during the time the process was still live, enough fans did back it, and stuck with it - certainly not the ones who blew anything.

Edit: Posted at the same time as Slash, without seeing his post.

I had my mandate in very early on in the process and even now I would still be willing to have that money taken from my bank account on a monthly basis as I seriously we will need that financial support and a fans buy out at some point in the future and I have long believed that fan ownership is the only way to safeguard the future of any football club. But we, the whole support blew it with the infighting, scare tactics and nitpicking over insignificant matters (and as REA has now divulged some abuse to the main players in 1000hours and interference with the funders) instead of looking at it as something that could have been moulded to suit the club over time. As you say though it is now a moot point but I feel we missed a golden opportunity to have a fully sustainable club run for the benefit of the club.

As for SMiSA, I'm not a member however if they were to go for something like fan ownership instead of just having a few shares and a seat on the board I would consider joining them. Perhaps it's time for SMiSA to review their intentions and decide if they want to remain a minority or to pick up the good bits from 1000hours and try to get some unity from the support over buying the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had my mandate in very early on in the process and even now I would still be willing to have that money taken from my bank account on a monthly basis as I seriously we will need that financial support and a fans buy out at some point in the future and I have long believed that fan ownership is the only way to safeguard the future of any football club. But we, the whole support blew it with the infighting, scare tactics and nitpicking over insignificant matters (and as REA has now divulged some abuse to the main players in 1000hours and interference with the funders) instead of looking at it as something that could have been moulded to suit the club over time. As you say though it is now a moot point but I feel we missed a golden opportunity to have a fully sustainable club run for the benefit of the club.

As for SMiSA, I'm not a member however if they were to go for something like fan ownership instead of just having a few shares and a seat on the board I would consider joining them. Perhaps it's time for SMiSA to review their intentions and decide if they want to remain a minority or to pick up the good bits from 1000hours and try to get some unity from the support over buying the club.

The offer made to SMISA in May remains open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had my mandate in very early on in the process and even now I would still be willing to have that money taken from my bank account on a monthly basis as I seriously we will need that financial support and a fans buy out at some point in the future and I have long believed that fan ownership is the only way to safeguard the future of any football club. But we, the whole support blew it with the infighting, scare tactics and nitpicking over insignificant matters (and as REA has now divulged some abuse to the main players in 1000hours and interference with the funders) instead of looking at it as something that could have been moulded to suit the club over time. As you say though it is now a moot point but I feel we missed a golden opportunity to have a fully sustainable club run for the benefit of the club.

As for SMiSA, I'm not a member however if they were to go for something like fan ownership instead of just having a few shares and a seat on the board I would consider joining them. Perhaps it's time for SMiSA to review their intentions and decide if they want to remain a minority or to pick up the good bits from 1000hours and try to get some unity from the support over buying the club.

No way. Not accepting that 'we, the whole support blew it' - not having it. I too filled in my DD mandate, and never withdrew it, even after my relatively low-level involvement with the process resulted in public accusations of being a liar, cheat and fraudster were made across several social media platforms.

Whatever shenanigans went on with Holyrood politicians, the consortium, or individual miscreants out to kybosh the whole shooting match.... nothing to do with me, or any other individual fan, (involved in designing leaflets and graphics or not!) who simply pledged support and perhaps to some degree or other, did so while crossing their fingers and hoping the whole thing went well.

By the end, I was just like Div - who has openly posted that he was simply scunnered with the whole experience and had no desire to get involved again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way. Not accepting that 'we, the whole support blew it' - not having it. I too filled in my DD mandate, and never withdrew it, even after my relatively low-level involvement with the process resulted in public accusations of being a liar, cheat and fraudster were made across several social media platforms.

Whatever shenanigans went on with Holyrood politicians, the consortium, or individual miscreants out to kybosh the whole shooting match.... nothing to do with me, or any other individual fan, (involved in designing leaflets and graphics or not!) who simply pledged support and perhaps to some degree or other, did so while crossing their fingers and hoping the whole thing went well.

By the end, I was just like Div - who has openly posted that he was simply scunnered with the whole experience and had no desire to get involved again.

Broadly agree with your sentiment Paul. An offer of £1.25m can in no way said to be "blowing it" it was simply not accepted by the Sellers as is their perfectly reasonable right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Broadly agree with your sentiment Paul. An offer of £1.25m can in no way said to be "blowing it" it was simply not accepted by the Sellers as is their perfectly reasonable right.

Well, we could argue the toss all day about the merit or otherwise in the consortium accepting that amended, long drawn out final 1.25 million offer. I suspect what most ordinary supporters who pledged would be more interested in knowing would be simply to read an open and fully honest account (including names) as to just why the 2 million original deal died - when so close. If that deal goes through, years of in-fighting and increasing friction are avoided, and the CIC would have been well under way by now, and we would be sitting here knowing, not guessing, if it was a good thing or not.

I've never been one for politics and in-fighting, so I can only imagine what it must have been like for those closely involved. I saw enough bullshit, politics and in-fighting at one 'club merchandise' meeting to last me a lifetime, never mind the CIC stuff.

Once that initial push, and enthusiasm for the very first 2 million offer was lost, the writing was on the wall for any subsequent bids. Rightly or wrongly, we will never know.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there is a huge amount of time and effort recquired to move SMiSA forward to become close to putting forward a takeover. The vehicle is there. Everything is in place, but the SMiSA committee are volunteers and have jobs and families and have been supportig SMiSA for 13 years.

This would require huge effort and new members would be vital to moving that forward. Unfortunately I just cannot see anything changing.

Couldn't SMiSA evolve into a grouping that is more conducive with advancing a buy-over?

For anyone else to take an interest and become involved, I suspect SMiSA would have to make explicit noises about wanting to move in that direction. Apologies if I have missed it, and they have indeed expressed an interest, but it certainly hasn't been apparent to me at any rate.

As things stand, I'm not entirely clear as to what SMiSA are all about. That is not to detract from the positive work they undoubtedly do, but if I had reason to believe that they were interested in genuinely exploring the option of fan ownership, I would like to hear more. I would imagine others would be in a similar position, though this might be temepered by 10000Hours fatigue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate or PM me as I have visibility to what you refer to.

One of the issues the SMiSA group face is it is the same committee as was originally formed and no new blood is coming through. Many memberhips lapsed after the selling of Love Street as the BoD refused to sell any more shares.

For all the good SMiSA have achieved there will always be critics bringing up "towel-gate" and accusations of "what's in it for them?" Petty stuff I know, but as 10000Hours know any fans group making an offer will have the same issues.

I was probably the first critical voice of Richard when I spoke out publicly saying "You aren't from Paisley - You aren't a Saints fan - You aren't even a football fan - So tell us all what is in it for you?"

I listened. I understood. I backed the original proposal. I did however not like the subsequent offerings as I felt that was to far away from the original co-operative one member one vote.

Unfortunately there is a huge amount of time and effort recquired to move SMiSA forward to become close to putting forward a takeover. The vehicle is there. Everything is in place, but the SMiSA committee are volunteers and have jobs and families and have been supportig SMiSA for 13 years.

This would require huge effort and new members would be vital to moving that forward. Unfortunately I just cannot see anything changing.

The offer made to SMiSA was the same as made to the Fans Council, which was basically that as the Club was still for sale and that if after the failure of 10000hours to conclude a deal if either OR both of those groups wanted to meet to go over what 10000hours tried to allow them to try a bid engaged with even more people (which is what would be needed to raise more money than £1.25m) then we were happy to do so but that this was expressly to be a New bid and not a rebirth of 10000hours for a third go.

A new Bid, engaged with new people trying to raise a New total but learning from what we did right and what we did wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally if the Fans were to try again my feeling is it needs a single Issue New group, not a SMiSA or a 10000hours (Mark 3!) or Even a Fans Council. No matter the right or wrong of it, all groups will have historical baggage, but a new groups with the unity of the Fans behind it and all the lessons learned stands a decent chance IMHO.

the number of things I would have done differently now that I have had a go at it and seen behind the scenes at a Number of other Fanownership proposals is significant.

Remember the Club as a loss making company is unlikely to be worth more as time goes on, but less.

But Unity and Focus on Cooperative Fanownership would be Key

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally if the Fans were to try again my feeling is it needs a single Issue New group, not a SMiSA or a 10000hours (Mark 3!) or Even a Fans Council. No matter the right or wrong of it, all groups will have historical baggage, but a new groups with the unity of the Fans behind it and all the lessons learned stands a decent chance IMHO.

the number of things I would have done differently now that I have had a go at it and seen behind the scenes at a Number of other Fanownership proposals is significant.

Remember the Club as a loss making company is unlikely to be worth more as time goes on, but less.

But Unity and Focus on Cooperative Fanownership would be Key

The chances of a completely new fan group coming from nowhere, with one goal to buy the club, with no links to SMiSA, or having been visible backers of the 10000hours bids is, in my opinion, absolutely zero.

There are a few fans who are well kent faces around the place with a bit of a profile through different reasons. Just by being a supporter myself I have come across, and had some dealings with Gordon Scott - director, Div McDonald - baldy webmeister and Jack Ross-esque media luvvy, Alan Provan - rubber ducks and beach hats, Jack Paterson - graphics, printing, book writing, Willie Bell - SMiSA, Gordian Mothersole - player testimonial committees, Ian Wilkie and Eric Crossan - fan council.... maybe a few others I may have forgotten.

My point being - I don't see where a prominent 'new' figurehead would come from with no 'baggage' to unite an entire support behind a single issue mandate.

Maybe of course the single issue that would unite us all is the issue of the Deepbone Roundabout.

Edited by pozbaird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chances of a completely new fan group coming from nowhere, with one goal to buy the club, with no link to SMiSA, or having been visible backers of the 10000hours bids is, in my opinion, absolutely zero.

There are a few fans who are well kent faces around the place with a bit of a profile through different reasons. Just by being a supporter myself I have come across, and had some dealings with Gordon Scott - director, Div McDonald - baldy webmeister and Jack Ross-esque media luvvy, Alan Provan - rubber ducks and beach hats, Jack Paterson - graphics, printing, book writing, Willie Bell - SMiSA, Gordian Mothersole - player testimonial committees, Ian Wilkie and Eric Crossan - fan council.... maybe a few others I may have forgotten.

My point being - I don't see where a prominent 'new' figurehead would come from with no 'baggage' to unite an entire support behind a single issue mandate.

Maybe of course the single issue that would unite us all is the issue of the Deepbone Roundabout.

Sorry I mean a new group but made up of exactly the sort of people you mention. The group IMHO needs to be single issue to avoid any baggage from the history of others but the members need to be well known and skilled whi know what they are doing and will be trustedby the community at large.

The single biggest issue we faced was being completely unknown in the community we were trying to engage with and for some that was an insurmountable problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in the slightest bit true. If you had read and listened correctly to all the presentations you would have heard and read that "any assets used of the Club by the CIC would have been paid for" e.g any hospitality used by the CIC would have been paid for to the Club and if the Void had been used the Club would have

A. been able to use the new Space seling it and creating revenue

and

B the CIC would have paid the Club for the rental of the space on a commercial basis thus creating revenue for the club

One of the main points of the proposal was to use the Ownership model to increase the resources available to the Club for the Squad. So I totally dispute that the CIC in anyway set out to sell Stuff that was owned by the Club without paying fairly for it. The whole point of the law about the "rights of the minority" is that we legally understood that this is the way it had to be.

we could have come along and said "if you are a member you get discounts on season tickets and hospitality, (like Motherwells model)" but that seemed somewhat against the point of the process which was to get more money into the Club and build it up by being Cooperatively owned by the Community and Fans that love it the most

I'm perfectly satisfied that I read and listened to your points at the time and understood them clearly, it was and clearly (again that word) remains a routine part of your argument to take the line that anyone who didn't & doesn't agree with you hasn't "listened correctly" - I dispute this. You had two and a bit years as preferred bidder and made numerous revisions to your bid and still couldn't make it work - now back to my original points.

****************************

Regarding the blurring between Corporate Membership/Hospitality Packages I clearly remember you saying it was appropriate for the CIC to benefit from any idea that was "new to the club".

Now I know it was div who made the following statements on the "10000hours Finances Explained" thread but you didn't contradict him or try and clarify the statements

'div', on 17 Apr 2012 - 13:56, said:snapback.png

The perks and benefits of 87 club membership will be designed in such a way that they do not harm revenue the club takes. For example members won't get discounted season tickets or discounted corporate hospitality, but they might get an offer of using a room in the stadium for hosting a business meeting, an invite to the directors lounge, the sort of thing that has an intrinsic value to the buyer but which does not affect the clubs revenue.

Any "benefits" or "perks" offered to ANY 10000Hours members, be it individuals or 87 club members cannot be detrimental to the existing revenue of the football club.

That has always been the case IMO, has never changed.

10000Hours can offer members "perks" that have no current financial value to the football club.

Apologies for the quirks of the quote function across threads but it's clear that perks were always part of the Corporate deals on offer.

***********************************

With regard to The Void the story coming from supporters of the bid at the time was that the club didn't have the resources/energy to proceed with the development yet within 48 hours of turning down your bid the BoD announced plans to proceed anyway. If it was/is a moneyspinner then it should've been developed by & for the club - end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand the BoD needed a £50,000 interest free loan from SMiSA for help funding the Dome which was approved, yet on the other hand they completely ignore a written request. Why?

This is exactly why I can't understand SMiSA though - their membership and those running it. SMiSA has been getting treated the same way now since the group was incepted. So why piss away members money on t-shirts and towels, and why give the consortium a £50k loan to "develop facilities" which presumably is supposed to enhance the value of the club assets - and therefore their share price. SMiSA should have told Gilmour and co to f**k off - and they should have made it clear that the only way the club would get £50k from them would be if they were allowed to purchase shares that would have stopped the consortium putting the clubs future in significant risk by offering a majority shareholding to a single investor.

SMiSA should have been looking at the consortium for what it is. SMiSA presumably have the goal of wanting to keep the club in safe hands and they should have looked at the consortium as their rival. Instead Gilmour and co wiggle their bums, and pull up their tops slightly and SMiSA are falling over themselves like ugly virgins at a lapdancing club to hand over their money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I mean a new group but made up of exactly the sort of people you mention. The group IMHO needs to be single issue to avoid any baggage from the history of others but the members need to be well known and skilled whi know what they are doing and will be trustedby the community at large.

The single biggest issue we faced was being completely unknown in the community we were trying to engage with and for some that was an insurmountable problem.

Yet I'd bet that some of the same people who were against 1000hours because of the unknown quantity above are the same people who will be wanting unknown wealthy businessmen to take over the club. Some people just don't want change from the traditional model of ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry I mean a new group but made up of exactly the sort of people you mention. The group IMHO needs to be single issue to avoid any baggage from the history of others but the members need to be well known and skilled whi know what they are doing and will be trustedby the community at large.

The single biggest issue we faced was being completely unknown in the community we were trying to engage with and for some that was an insurmountable problem.

In the end I was glad the CiC failed. It became tiresome coming on here reading the self-professed would be directors and people in the know make comments about how the club should be run and wax lyrically about the stuff they know but could not tell others. At times it was like reading the politics of a golf club.

What should be remembered is that in all clubs, organisations and businesses where you are given a position of responsibility then you are a custodian of said club, organisation and business. Your duty is to ensure that at the end of your tenure you have done your utmost best to leave it in a better position than when you arrived.

There were too many people with a self-interest wanting to get involved forgetting that it was first and foremost a business that need business people to run it and secondly fans people to take care of the fans perspective. After all it’s the fans that are the funders of the business.

Edited by Gruffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I'd bet that some of the same people who were against 1000hours because of the unknown quantity above are the same people who will be wanting unknown wealthy businessmen to take over the club. Some people just don't want change from the traditional model of ownership.

No Bud, I think some people just don't want change away from the current Board of Directors. They haven't listened to the comments about them wanting to sell up, about statements regarding directors who's pension funds are tied up in St Mirren shares, or heeded the warning of a consortium that wants to sell a majority shareholding to a single individual.

Now I know nothing of this "Swiss" bid or of any other bid but what I do know is that were I still a supporter of the club thing I would trust would be a community ownership of the club. As I said at the time at least that way if a figurehead is deemed untrustworthy or incapable there is a route to getting rid of them without having to find large sums of money to stop them destroying the club. I'd like to think it was the consortium that blew it's chance when it refused the 10000hours bid and that REA is correct that the clubs valuation is only going to drop as time goes on. I'd also like to think that someone with a bit of balls would take up from where 10000hours left off and make community ownership of the football club a reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. If it was/is a moneyspinner then it should've been developed by & for the club - end of story.

There lay the problem with the bid. It came down to who would get the £100's of pounds every second week from the facility. Narrow minded people not willing to look at the bigger picture of what this facility could have offered to the club.

It was such a moneyspinner idea its still not been implemented by our corporate department, what does that tell you. But then again how many years did we have a club shop that did not sell anything.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...