Hagleybuddies Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Melanie, there is no doubt that an agreement to put the ground and training ground in trust would work. That would be very simple to do. I agree that the current owners can do as they wish with the property, they can sell it to some chancers who will take us bust or they can put it in trust for the good folk of Paisley and for St Mirren. They are in the pound seats and all we can do is remind them they had lost all their value before the council bailed the club and them out by granting planning. Take less, put the assets in trust and walk away with your heads held high. Please don't let 'fit and proper' people be your justification for letting the money men in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamlet Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Just like to correct a couple of comments. St mirren do not own the training ground. It is on extremely long lease. The club did not go bust. We were just up to our eyes in debt. For the record the councillors who voted against the change to allow a supermarket were harkins, hood, green, hall and mcdowell. After all the debt was settled there was not any spare bobs in the bank. The old shares "value" was eroded when the share issue was issued. Not trying to be negative but just relating the facts. Wish I knew the best way forward since I have my doubts about anybody wanting to buy us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnus Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Harkins, Hood, Green, Hall and McDowell. Quite right to remember these people and what would have happened to St Mirren had they got their way. The existing Bod is tired and understandably would like to move on but they have done a great job safeguarding the future of the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Is the HALL one the provost wummin ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FTOF Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Is the HALL one the provost wummin ? Yes. The very individual that was dancing about with a Saints scarf on after we won the league cup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Yes. The very individual that was dancing about with a Saints scarf on after we won the league cup. Yeah , just found the "More faces than the town hall "thread. & I commented on it at the time ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnus Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 It shows that it took more than just good luck to secure the club's future. We didn't really have a lot of friends in high places. The BoD might have dithered a wee bit over Tommy Craig but when you look at their achievements over the piece including opposing the 888 league proposal they have played a blinder and will be a hard act to follow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrappy coco Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Strange that, "the rongers" had many friends in high places, it didn't do those cnuts much good.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Whats different about an offer if the Selling consortium putting up 51% of their shares for fans to buy compared to the clusterf**k of four years ago? 1. The only people who committed to putting up enough money to honour their pledge are the only ones who would given the chance do so again! The Fans! Not a bunch of hangers on trying to make money for their pals on the back of Fan Money buying the club. The consortium can make it happen, and get a fair price over an agreed timescale for their shares that does not involve any debt being loaded against the club. Plus their won't be every tom, kibble and jesus trying to play fast and loose with club assets. Many forget how much of the clubs assets were set to be hived off in that proposal. Yeah their was a bolt being put on the door once the fans were left with all the liability. zero of the Clubs assets would be hived off in either 10000hours CIC or a SMiSA IPS model. but dont let the facts both you Somner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 The HIbs proposal is no more than a new share issue. The new shares will be held by individual shareholders not by a collective like SMiSA or the Erin Trust in the case of Hibs (or BUYHIBS...their CIC model) this means that the 49% remaining held by the group comp (which also holds 4.5m worth of loans to the club) is still entirely in the box seat. IMHO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagleybuddies Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Hamlet, let's agree St Mirren own the extremely long lease which has a value similar to owning it outright. God bless the councillors, they truly saved our club. Likewise, I doubt anyone will buy us or if they do it will be for other interests. That brings us back to the current shareholders creating a trust to ensure the principal assets are beyond the reach of chancers, accepting less and moving on heads held high. I have nothing but admiration for the existing board but as magnus says they are tired. I do believe they have St Mirren at heart so would be happy if they stay, if not, please don't slip up now, accept your value has gone and give the club a really sound base for the future. SMTID Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagleybuddies Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Hamlet, let's agree St Mirren own the extremely long lease which has a value similar to owning it outright. God bless the councillors, they truly saved our club. Likewise, I doubt anyone will buy us or if they do it will be for other interests. That brings us back to the current shareholders creating a trust to ensure the principal assets are beyond the reach of chancers, accepting less and moving on heads held high. I have nothing but admiration for the existing board but as magnus says they are tired. I do believe they have St Mirren at heart so would be happy if they stay, if not, please don't slip up now, accept your value has gone and give the club a really sound base for the future. SMTID Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagleybuddies Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Hamlet, We were bust, we could not pay our debts as they fell due and our liabilities were greater than our assets. By the grace of the bank we did not enter a formal insolvency procedure but to all intents and purposes we were bust. The point being the shareholder value was nil before the planning permission. They should start from that point when negotiating a sale! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Harkins, Hood, Green, Hall and McDowell. Quite right to remember these people and what would have happened to St Mirren had they got their way. The existing Bod is tired and understandably would like to move on but they have done a great job safeguarding the future of the club. Is there any logical reason why they objected , did they have interests elsewhere , did they think they were serving the community that elected them , or they just anti St Mirren ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagleybuddies Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 It doesn't matter who voted agin, the council made the best decision for St Mirren, end of! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 2014 Who would the directors be setting this "trust" up for, the directors of the club? the supporters of the club? You would then need to have trustees who would be in control of those assets and who would be able to, if they wished, appoint other trustees (miby not mirren minded ones) and resign themselves as trustees. I'm not sure you would be any further forward with the "trust" proposal and it probably would create a whole load of legal and other issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robo Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 The HIbs proposal is no more than a new share issue. The new shares will be held by individual shareholders not by a collective like SMiSA or the Erin Trust in the case of Hibs (or BUYHIBS...their CIC model) this means that the 49% remaining held by the group comp (which also holds 4.5m worth of loans to the club) is still entirely in the box seat. IMHO The more I read about the Hibs offer the less it sounds like a good deal for their fans. Think they need to agree that all share purchases go through a supporters trust rather than individuals buying up shares. At least we are in the position of knowing that whoever buys the shares on offer will be the largest shareholder and will be in control of the club. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 Is there anyone on here related to a councillor or need counselling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 Is there anyone on here related to a councillor or need counselling. The latter after decades of buddie torment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 Is there any logical reason why they objected , did they have interests elsewhere , did they think they were serving the community that elected them , or they just anti St Mirren ? Without any proof we cannot suppose they had been influenced by "other interests" more likely they were voting based on the interests of people in the areas they represent,this could range from owners/operators of business premises in that area to people living there e.g. if i had a business in Paisley that might lose custom to a supermarket i would be on to the councillor likewise if i was a resident who thought it could be detrimental to my local area. There is also of course a political agenda where where one party will vote in opposition to the other, and when it involves local councils there are rivalries even among those of the same party. It's basically why i hate politicians,they dont always vote for the good of the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 Is there any logical reason why they objected , did they have interests elsewhere , did they think they were serving the community that elected them , or they just anti St Mirren ? The five who all voted against were Labour councillors. Here are some quotes from them I found in the system at work: “The duty I signed up to as a councillor means I’ve got to allow for the best interests of all Renfrewshire residents and take into account all representations. “I will not be frightened by threats of fan power or being voted out of office. My conscience will decide what I do today. “I have sympathy for the St Mirren fans and for their concern for the future of the club but I wish to protect the town centre and other town centres.” “We all support St Mirren Football Club and I can go back to the heyday of St Mirren when they did bring a lot of pride to Paisley. “But my concern is what will happen to Marks and Spencer and the rest of the town if this development goes ahead.” Glad to see M&S was more important to them than the local football club. I seem to remember one of them trying to claim the town centre was on the way back and the Piazza was a success Worth noting of those who voted in favour of the move, three were Labour councillors who went against the party line: “It was a difficult decision but I had to vote with my conscience and it would be very hard to live with the decision if I was a person who had put a nail in St Mirren ’s coffin.” “I was conscious about the fact that we were going against the local plan and I had to ask myself if I was prepared to treat St Mirren as a special case and the answer was yes, it means so much to all of the people of this town.” Will be eternally grateful to those who voted in favour. Those who voted against should be ashamed and the club should have told the provost to do one when she was getting involved with the League Cup stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 I think that because through SMISA there would be no members who gain elite status through putting up a larger amount of cash up front, Elite status... Surely any fan could have funded fitting out the void and received some sort of consideration. Consideration is fine without further control, control being different to advice/guidance/involvement. Just what is the issue in offering block bookings of a space at discount in return for services? You still have the space to use at other times, not to mention further events to publicise. It all just feels very "it'll be corrupt, but fine under SMISA", which is blinkered at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callum Gilhooley Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 The five who all voted against were Labour councillors. Here are some quotes from them I found in the system at work: “The duty I signed up to as a councillor means I’ve got to allow for the best interests of all Renfrewshire residents and take into account all representations. “I will not be frightened by threats of fan power or being voted out of office. My conscience will decide what I do today. “I have sympathy for the St Mirren fans and for their concern for the future of the club but I wish to protect the town centre and other town centres.” “We all support St Mirren Football Club and I can go back to the heyday of St Mirren when they did bring a lot of pride to Paisley. “But my concern is what will happen to Marks and Spencer and the rest of the town if this development goes ahead.” Glad to see M&S was more important to them than the local football club. I seem to remember one of them trying to claim the town centre was on the way back and the Piazza was a success : Worth noting of those who voted in favour of the move, three were Labour councillors who went against the party line: “It was a difficult decision but I had to vote with my conscience and it would be very hard to live with the decision if I was a person who had put a nail in St Mirren ’s coffin.” “I was conscious about the fact that we were going against the local plan and I had to ask myself if I was prepared to treat St Mirren as a special case and the answer was yes, it means so much to all of the people of this town.” Will be eternally grateful to those who voted in favour. Those who voted against should be ashamed and the club should have told the provost to do one when she was getting involved with the League Cup stuff. Yeah , that worked out well !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 Elite status... Surely any fan could have funded fitting out the void and received some sort of consideration. Consideration is fine without further control, control being different to advice/guidance/involvement. Just what is the issue in offering block bookings of a space at discount in return for services? You still have the space to use at other times, not to mention further events to publicise. It all just feels very "it'll be corrupt, but fine under SMISA", which is blinkered at best. I was not just speaking about the void, but on that point it was stated at the time that the void would be made into a bar and that corporate members of the 10k hours would have preference over £10 a month members when it came to being served at the bar, it was divisive before it even got approval,i can only imagine the mayhem that would have ensued when someone waiting for 5 minutes to be served was ignored by bar staff when one of them just walked up and got served straight away, there were other similar issues which i believe would have lead to £10 a month members withdrawing their direct debits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted December 31, 2014 Report Share Posted December 31, 2014 Think the elite group was to be called the 87 members. Once 10000hours started morphing into different groups with unique privileges it was doomed. Did 10000hours not also consider bringing on board Gordon Scott only for other punters to pay him off as well as consortium? Yes, decisions were being made and i believe most if not all of those decisions would have been in place for 4 years? before members could have a vote on whether they agreed or disagreed with them. I am not sure on the part Gordon Scott was going to have in the set-up. 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.