Richie P Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 I don't see how you could keep the fan council running detached from the club as it's supposed to be a bridge between the club and the fans. But if new owners didn't want to listen to them how would the fans get any input. I would be for the direct debits running to build up a fund for the future for buying the club once it goes into liquidation but only if the money is legally tied up for the sole purpose of buying the club and it is run by the right people. Right now I don't think the fans council or SMiSA are the correct people. The fans council because of the above and I haven't seen or heard much evidence of it actually doing anything other than raising funds for the dome or the golf day - all raising funds for the club but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of the fans getting any input to or from the club. SMiSA because as they currently stand they only seem to be interested in having a relatively small portion of the shares and a seat on the board - not actually fans ownership of the club. Fully agree. I meant keep it running in an identity guise and not the fans council as such, purely for your reasoning. Any funds would be the purpose of a fans buy out. I don't think we would raise too much if I asked you to start funding my bank account :-) without the identify and purpose of the funds bring clearly defined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Ahhh. The old days when we used to save up for things. :-) Is it that bad an idea? When hearts hit the shit they were able to have quite a substantial whip round. If we were to go the same way how much could we muster with our fan base? Like the CIC some were in straight away, some out straight away. Any idea would not be right for everyone and Its there to be shot down. I am all for saving, but I prefer to know what I am saving for. What you are describing is an insurance fund. What would happen if it was never required? I would rather contribute to an active fund that was working to developing certain aspects of the club, as opposed to a contingency fund that I cannot ultimately have any control as to how it is utilised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richie P Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 I am all for saving, but I prefer to know what I am saving for. What you are describing is an insurance fund. What would happen if it was never required? I would rather contribute to an active fund that was working to developing certain aspects of the club, as opposed to a contingency fund that I cannot ultimately have any control as to how it is utilised. I suppose that is the unknown. If the club is well run under new ownership and is never up for sale it would be an indefinite contribution. There could always be a timescale or fund value trigger that releases back money etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whydowebother Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 I am all for saving, but I prefer to know what I am saving for. What you are describing is an insurance fund. What would happen if it was never required? I would rather contribute to an active fund that was working to developing certain aspects of the club, as opposed to a contingency fund that I cannot ultimately have any control as to how it is utilised. I like your thinking. The money could do many projects (voted by contributors) ie ; Mini bus for the club to be used for youth teams , Scoreboard in corners , The void into a bar etc etc then it's having an impact each season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 I am all for saving, but I prefer to know what I am saving for. What you are describing is an insurance fund. What would happen if it was never required? I would rather contribute to an active fund that was working to developing certain aspects of the club, as opposed to a contingency fund that I cannot ultimately have any control as to how it is utilised. In that case why not just contribute to SMiSA or through the fans council. Personally I'd rather any money I paid regularly was for the sole purpose of buying the club. Even if the club was sold tomorrow at some point in the future it is either going to be up for sale again or heading towards administration. It might be described as insurance but as Richie P said above with our fan base how much could we raise in a couple of months if the shit was to hit the fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Fans banding together to raise funds for mini-buses, scoreboards... fans organising golf days and cup final nights... fans coming up with merchandising ideas... I need a lie down. I've come over all faint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 (edited) It might be described as insurance but as Richie P said above with our fan base how much could we raise in a couple of months if the shit was to hit the fan. Honestly? I suspect we could raise more in a crisis situation than we would if supporters were asked to contribute to the insurance fund (just employing that as a short-hand). Around 1,000 people were willing to pay a tenner a month for a genuine stake in the club, how many do you think would contribute to a fund that might, to all intents and purposes, never be used? ETA: I'm not trying to piss on anyone's chips here. I'm not convinced by the idea, and cannot imagine any circumstance whereby I'd contribute. On the flip side, if I could see some genuine ongoing benefit for the club, and I had a say in how it was utilised I might buy into it. It could be as simple as a Survey Monkey vote with options, and if 75% of contributors agree, some funds could be used to buy a new minibus for the youth team. That way, you could see some tangible benefit from the money you are putting aside. Some money could always be kept aside to kickstart a fund should the worst happen. Now, whether SMiSA or the Fans Council could fulfill such a role, I'm not sure. If it was done properly, why not? Edited September 17, 2013 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 In that case why not just contribute to SMiSA or through the fans council. Personally I'd rather any money I paid regularly was for the sole purpose of buying the club. Even if the club was sold tomorrow at some point in the future it is either going to be up for sale again or heading towards administration. It might be described as insurance but as Richie P said above with our fan base how much could we raise in a couple of months if the shit was to hit the fan. Join SMISA now , it has funds already set aside for buying shares Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Dire Rea? That was his brother I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whydowebother Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Fans banding together to raise funds for mini-buses, scoreboards... fans organising golf days and cup final nights... fans coming up with merchandising ideas... I need a lie down. I've come over all faint. You could go for a wee lie doon in the new club mini bus, en-route to the next game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldorf34 Posted September 17, 2013 Report Share Posted September 17, 2013 Are you implying that I'm a racist? I just don't want anyone but St Mirren supporters owning our club. I'm not alone. Then join SMISA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 I like your thinking. The money could do many projects (voted by contributors) ie ; Mini bus for the club to be used for youth teams , Scoreboard in corners , The void into a bar etc etc then it's having an impact each season. ....t-shirts and towels for the first team.....an inflatable dome.... If Tesco passed round a collection bucket to it's shoppers asking them all to pay £10 per month to save up for them to install a coffee shop in the local Tesco store would it not be seen as strange? Why would a company that stood to gain from the sale of coffee ask it's customers to have a whip round? What would be in it for those customers? So why is what Drew is suggesting any different here? St Mirren are a business owned by shareholders. Some of those shareholders are trying to offload their shares but they've had a terribly difficult time getting anyone to meet their ridiculous valuation. Those same shareholders have put the future of the club at risk, for personal gain, by combining through legal agreement to offer a majority shareholding to anyone purchasing the club - and when a new owner suddenly appears on the scene, and some fans get a bit nervous about it, it's deemed that the best solution is to continue to throw money into the club even if the new owners are regularly empting the bank account. It has to be an ownership bid or nothing for me. Anything less is just plain stupid and unbelievably naive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 (edited) ....t-shirts and towels for the first team.....an inflatable dome.... If Tesco passed round a collection bucket to it's shoppers asking them all to pay £10 per month to save up for them to install a coffee shop in the local Tesco store would it not be seen as strange? Why would a company that stood to gain from the sale of coffee ask it's customers to have a whip round? What would be in it for those customers? So why is what Drew is suggesting any different here? St Mirren are a business owned by shareholders. Some of those shareholders are trying to offload their shares but they've had a terribly difficult time getting anyone to meet their ridiculous valuation. Those same shareholders have put the future of the club at risk, for personal gain, by combining through legal agreement to offer a majority shareholding to anyone purchasing the club - and when a new owner suddenly appears on the scene, and some fans get a bit nervous about it, it's deemed that the best solution is to continue to throw money into the club even if the new owners are regularly empting the bank account. It has to be an ownership bid or nothing for me. Anything less is just plain stupid and unbelievably naive. So would you suggest that the Golf Day to raise funds for the youth set up was just plain stupid and unbelievably naive?The point I am making is that I would rather 'gift' something tangible to the club I support, than put money into an 'insurance fund'. Tesco is a massive company with the primary purpose of making money for its shareholders. As such, your analogy is nonsensical. Edited September 18, 2013 by Drew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Join SMISA now , it has funds already set aside for buying shares As I have already said, at the moment SMiSA do not seem to have any plans to try and buy the club, only to own a relatively small amount of the shares and have a seat on the board. If SMiSA, or some organisation, was to look at attempting to raise funds purely to bring the club under fan ownership then I would seriously look at becoming a member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 The golf day is slightly different in that at least those handing over their cash are getting something in return for their money. Drew St Mirren is a business with a £multi million turnover. It's got shareholders - 52% of whom have the future of the club over a barrel for personal gain. It's not a charity or a not for profit company. You and others might be very comfortable in the idea that Gilmour, Campbell, McAusland, Purses and Marshall make a profit and that is fair enough, but if you want to invoke the Hearts example what happens if these new owners are shysters like Romanov? How naive and stupid would it have been for Hearts fans to have thrown money at their capital projects or their youth development when the real danger came from the debt that Romanov was building up from within. As I've said repeatedly IMO SMiSA have been incredibly stupid and naive with their assets. Fans handing over money for nothing in return need their heads examined Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
class of 76-77 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Since when were we a club that had a multi million pound turnover ? That is a ridiculous statement to make. We're a relatively small club in comparison to most other top flight sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magic Monkey Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Yes, http://www.blackandwhitearmy.com/forums/index.php/topic/37208-the-swiss-is-club-about-to-be-sold/#entry1110269 You would Dowdeswell to read the whole thread before posting. Ha, fair enough. Though I started to read back before posting and it was just a load of shit cheese jokes and the usual cunts bickering about shite, so I broke etiquette and posted anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isle Of Bute Saint Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Finding myself watching this thread like a hawk only to find its away in another direction. As was pointed out further back if the club was in a real emergency would fans start putting money forward even then it probably would not be enough going on what was raised in our darkest hour. Only those who ran the club put there houses on the line in the name of St Mirren. Here we have a rumour regarding a Swiss take over and some fans are asking for the corners to be filled in yet we can't fill the stadium ? Score boards ? Here was me thinking the squad needs boosted. Even if a take over is on to think money is going to be thrown at the club willy nilly is pie in the sky. All I would want to know is why St Mirren ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whydowebother Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Finding myself watching this thread like a hawk only to find its away in another direction. As was pointed out further back if the club was in a real emergency would fans start putting money forward even then it probably would not be enough going on what was raised in our darkest hour. Only those who ran the club put there houses on the line in the name of St Mirren. Here we have a rumour regarding a Swiss take over and some fans are asking for the corners to be filled in yet we can't fill the stadium ? Score boards ? Here was me thinking the squad needs boosted. Even if a take over is on to think money is going to be thrown at the club willy nilly is pie in the sky. All I would want to know is why St Mirren ?Good post , however the bigger issues would be for BOD or new owners to answer.The separate smaller issues are just things that the supporters could do to enhance the club albeit on a smaller scale. The playing side/ running of the club are for those in charge but that's not to say fans could not put on to the club for other things. Ultimately though , your correct Why St Mirren ? amongst lots of other questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Finding myself watching this thread like a hawk only to find its away in another direction. As was pointed out further back if the club was in a real emergency would fans start putting money forward even then it probably would not be enough going on what was raised in our darkest hour. Only those who ran the club put there houses on the line in the name of St Mirren. Here we have a rumour regarding a Swiss take over and some fans are asking for the corners to be filled in yet we can't fill the stadium ? Score boards ? Here was me thinking the squad needs boosted. Even if a take over is on to think money is going to be thrown at the club willy nilly is pie in the sky. All I would want to know is why St Mirren ? It's a pertinent question - 'Why St Mirren?', but surely far from the only question you'd want answered? Talk of filling in corners and scoreboards is only a bit of forum fun. Mind you, if any new owners came in and started filling in corners and erecting scoreboards, it would be better than new owners coming in and signing Dundee-esque Spaniards on 10k a week. Anyway, I digress... Tons of questions for any new owners, not one! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 The Club did not have to Pay the debt back. The CIC with the 1000+ members did. No Debt or security, bond or floating charge existed or would have existed between the Club and the CIC creditors. If the CIC had failed to pay its way the only recourse any creditor would have had would have been to sell the shares that the CIC owned to someone else that wanted to own a the Club, but it would have had to do this in a responsible way not a fire sale due to the kinds of organisations involved. Although in the history of the lenders involved they have never foreclosed on any creditor and obviously would not have agreed to loan the money to the Fans Group had they not done their homework on the business model and the sustainabilty of it. is that why all the lenders jumped ship then..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robo Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 I would rather contribute to an active fund that was working to developing certain aspects of the club, as opposed to a contingency fund that I cannot ultimately have any control as to how it is utilised. The problem with that is that by putting money into certain aspects of the club, without some sort of shareholding in return (which would be unlikely to happen with a new owner just having bought 51% of the club), then you are just increasing the assets for the new owners without them having to put any more of their own money in. Unless the 51% is owned by the fans then investment from fans is discouranged, in my opinion. I think we'd be crazy not to create some sort of fund as an insurance against any new owners doing a Gretna on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest somner9 Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 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 The words 'Rent' 'Peppercorn' and 'Selective Re-collection' spring to mind. oh and the fact that kibble/church were putting up the funds for void re-model and basically controlling that revenue stream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 Since when were we a club that had a multi million pound turnover ? That is a ridiculous statement to make. We're a relatively small club in comparison to most other top flight sides. In 2011 the annual report showed a £3.1m annual turnover. That was it down 19% on the year before. That is a £multi million turnover. I look forward to seeing your apology.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted September 18, 2013 Report Share Posted September 18, 2013 The problem with that is that by putting money into certain aspects of the club, without some sort of shareholding in return (which would be unlikely to happen with a new owner just having bought 51% of the club), then you are just increasing the assets for the new owners without them having to put any more of their own money in. Unless the 51% is owned by the fans then investment from fans is discouranged, in my opinion. I think we'd be crazy not to create some sort of fund as an insurance against any new owners doing a Gretna on us. Totally agree with your first paragraph Robo - it's more or less what I've been trying to say although you've done it an a far more concise manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.