pozbaird Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 (edited) Playing devils advocate. If I were a foreign investor, I would be looking at Motherwell before saints. Purely on league placings over circa last 5 years. For a 1.5 million investment, if the purchasers have a good network of agents, think how quickly they could recoup this basing it on Dundee utd. players sales, over the last few years. With an investment in a good management team and a focus on youth. What return could be made on our current youth. McLean Mc ginn Naismith Mallan Mclear Kelly Add to the list. Above excludes the 1m + the fake saints has in annual turnover more than us, with a smaller home gate. I feel if you are willing to invest at this time, in our club, with a healthy balance sheet, in this climate, a profit can be made and push the club forward. Feliz Navidad! Future owner. X I'm not disputing the Argentinian consortium's right to sniff around any possible target club they choose. For all I know, they could have looked at Livingston, the Sevco Works XI, Dukla Pumpherston and Inverurie Loco Works along with Motherwell. That's their business.Am I not explaining myself very well? I'm struggling to put it any better - I honestly believe that IF, after five years, after telling us they want to sell to the right people and have their place in St Mirren history cemented and untarnished - the BoD absolutely owe the St Mirren support some sort of answers as to why this consortium ticks the boxes, should a sale be concluded. The vibe I'm getting is that some folk are arguing no, they don't, they owe us nothing and can just sell without needing to answer any questions we may have. Basically because it's their ba' and we're no' playing with it? I don't get that. Not after Rangers, Romanov, Mileson, Massone, Dundee, Motherwell.... Edited December 28, 2014 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russian Saint Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 Playing devils advocate. If I were a foreign investor, I would be looking at Motherwell before saints. Purely on league placings over circa last 5 years. For a 1.5 million investment, if the purchasers have a good network of agents, think how quickly they could recoup this basing it on Dundee utd. players sales, over the last few years. With an investment in a good management team and a focus on youth. What return could be made on our current youth. McLean Mc ginn Naismith Mallan Mclear Kelly Add to the list. Above excludes the 1m + the fake saints has in annual turnover more than us, with a smaller home gate. I feel if you are willing to invest at this time, in our club, with a healthy balance sheet, in this climate, a profit can be made and push the club forward. Feliz Navidad! Future owner. X I agree with most of what you say. Saints have (allegedly) no debt, new stadium, training facilities (which are better than most in the division) so why not allow foreign investors in (namely the Argentinian chaps) Motherwell for instance are on the bones of their arse, so putting a business head on (despite league position) which option would you be inclined to look at? If they can stick another 500 to 1000 at each home game by investing in the team ( and I don't mean blowing budgets like Motherwell, Killie and Dundee have done) then they'll make a small profit and something to build on. Just my tuppence worth though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russian Saint Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 I agree with most of what you say. Saints have (allegedly) no debt, new stadium, training facilities (which are better than most in the division) so why not allow foreign investors in (namely the Argentinian chaps) Motherwell for instance are on the bones of their arse, so putting a business head on (despite league position) which option would you be inclined to look at? If they can stick another 500 to 1000 at each home game by investing in the team ( and I don't mean blowing budgets like Motherwell, Killie and Dundee have done) then they'll make a small profit and something to build on. Just my tuppence worth though. Also meant to add. Reportedly we have the youngest team and smallest (is that the correct word?) wage bill in the league. If I were an investor I'd be looking at the bigger picture. The names you mention above may be worth selling on (I'd only mention McLean and McGinn at this time) where as the likes of Motherwell, Killie and Dundee (as far as I'm aware don't have) Ross County have Roy McGreggor to fund them, but due to his line of business and falling oil prices, he can't sustain that. ICT rely heavily on loans, St Johnstone also seem to be spending more than they're bringing in at the gates. From these points I'd say St Mirren could well be well worth investing in. Just my opinion though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 I'm not disputing the Argentinian consortium's right to sniff around any possible target club they choose. For all I know, they could have looked at Livingston, the Sevco Works XI, Dukla Pumpherston and Inverurie Loco Works along with Motherwell. That's their business. Am I not explaining myself very well? I'm struggling to put it any better - I honestly believe that IF, after five years, after telling us they want to sell to the right people and have their place in St Mirren history cemented and untarnished - the BoD absolutely owe the St Mirren support some sort of answers as to why this consortium ticks the boxes, should a sale be concluded. The vibe I'm getting is that some folk are arguing no, they don't, they owe us nothing and can just sell without needing to answer any questions we may have. Basically because it's their ba' and we're no' playing with it? I don't get that. Not after Rangers, Romanov, Mileson, Massone, Dundee, Motherwell.... Brian. For the past 5 years the board have tried their damnest to sell to the right people without success. It's quite possible they no longer think there is a perfect candidate and they simply can't wait any longer. To this and they have increased their shareholdings to make it more attractive to any would be suitor and are trying to ensure as much as practical they get reasonable people whose business plan doesn't include destroying the club medium term. This is probably as much as we can hope for after all the trials and tribulations the Board have overseen. They may want what's best for Saint Mirren but at the same time realise they themselves could drag the club down inadvertently by holding out for the perfect people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 Brian. For the past 5 years the board have tried their damnest to sell to the right people without success. It's quite possible they no longer think there is a perfect candidate and they simply can't wait any longer. To this and they have increased their shareholdings to make it more attractive to any would be suitor and are trying to ensure as much as practical they get reasonable people whose business plan doesn't include destroying the club medium term. This is probably as much as we can hope for after all the trials and tribulations the Board have overseen. They may want what's best for Saint Mirren but at the same time realise they themselves could drag the club down inadvertently by holding out for the perfect people. Brian? I don't know a Bwian. I have a Wodewick.... Div - Thwo him to the fwoah centwurion! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 Brian? I don't know a Bwian. I have a Wodewick.... Div - Thwo him to the fwoah centwurion! Thwee times you denied me... big nose! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russian Saint Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 Brian. For the past 5 years the board have tried their damnest to sell to the right people without success. It's quite possible they no longer think there is a perfect candidate and they simply can't wait any longer. To this and they have increased their shareholdings to make it more attractive to any would be suitor and are trying to ensure as much as practical they get reasonable people whose business plan doesn't include destroying the club medium term. This is probably as much as we can hope for after all the trials and tribulations the Board have overseen. They may want what's best for Saint Mirren but at the same time realise they themselves could drag the club down inadvertently by holding out for the perfect people. Put yourself in SG's shoes. He's invested a lot of money, blood sweat and tears. It's probably taken its toll on his finances, family life, his wife is (like any normal wife) thinking of retiring to a place in the sun....... and rightly so. If he decides to sell up to the highest bidder....... can you blame the man? 10000 hours was the best chance we as fans had of a fan ownership and it didn't happen. In my opinion Richard and co did a fantastic job in trying to drum up support (I was one of them) Now on the forum there are folks saying "let's try again" I don't think so. We need to take take the blinkers off if we want to go forward. It's a gamble yes, but SG and co have taken the club as far as they can and deserve to have their day in the sun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted December 28, 2014 Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 Brian? I don't know a Bwian. I have a Wodewick.... Div - Thwo him to the fwoah centwurion! My apologies poz. For the name calling. Not the sentiment! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naughtius maximus Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Brian? I don't know a Bwian. I have a Wodewick.... Div - Thwo him to the fwoah centwurion! You taking the piss Biggus Dickus ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 If the BoD decide the Argentinian guys are the ones to take the club forward, you've really got to show some trust they are making the correct decision. They'll do their due diligence and I suspect the SFA, or whatever they are known as now, will want to ensure they pass the fit n proper person test. What and how many checks you can actually do on a group of Argentinians, I'm not sure though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) If the BoD decide the Argentinian guys are the ones to take the club forward, you've really got to show some trust they are making the correct decision. They'll do their due diligence and I suspect the SFA, or whatever they are known as now, will want to ensure they pass the fit n proper person test. What and how many checks you can actually do on a group of Argentinians, I'm not sure though. I still clearly remember Craig Whyte walking into Ibrox for the first time. Press and cameramen falling over each other, a horde of fans cheering and punching the air. One fan in particular, with his kid in tow, shoving a piece of paper under Whyte's nose begging for an autograph. They thought they were getting a Scots mega-successful businessmen with Rangers leanings and 'off the radar wealth'. They thought they were on for shafting ra' Sellik up the arse, Laudrup and Gascoigne standard signings, and deep forays into the Champions League. They trusted Sir David Murray's decision. They trusted him unquestioningly. How did that one go? Edited December 29, 2014 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shull Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Dinnae need checks Melmac. Just say Naw, but thanks for the offer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Alas, SDM at oldco was prob as much a crook as Whyte was. I'm surprised the oldco administrator did not try to have the sale / transfer to whyte reduced as it seems obvious now that SDM was only really trying to save his own skin but I digress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a50lennyc Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 I think it went better than we all hoped it would. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 I think it went better than we all hoped it would. Game, set and match... Slartibartfast! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Hibs have today announced they will open up 51% of the shareholding for fans to purchase putting them in contril of their club. We have the vehicle (Smisa) in place with the Supporters Trust set up to channel fans investment in our club. All we need is the selling consortium to see SENSE! And enable the people who have always (like their good-selves) had the best interests of the club at heart (The Fans), to take control in an orderly and timely process. They will get paid for 51% of the shares, the fans, sorry shareholders will have to organise their representation, choosing those within THEIR ranks with the necessary skill set to take on the baton, whilst if the selling consortium so wish retaining the biggest individual/group shareholding outside of the 50+1% owned by the fans. We would see a new and irresistible energy in how the club is run, and on what opportunities are developed to better the club at the heart of the community . They could put the wheels in motion, and trust the fans, as we indeed did and have trusted them over the years to do the right thing at every turn by our club. Just 'Believe' selling consortium, and the right people will come forward to take up the mantle rather than the sausage roll budget for their mates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stlucifer Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Hibs have today announced they will open up 51% of the shareholding for fans to purchase putting them in contril of their club. We have the vehicle (Smisa) in place with the Supporters Trust set up to channel fans investment in our club. All we need is the selling consortium to see SENSE! And enable the people who have always (like their good-selves) had the best interests of the club at heart (The Fans), to take control in an orderly and timely process. They will get paid for 51% of the shares, the fans, sorry shareholders will have to organise their representation, choosing those within THEIR ranks with the necessary skill set to take on the baton, whilst if the selling consortium so wish retaining the biggest individual/group shareholding outside of the 50+1% owned by the fans. We would see a new and irresistible energy in how the club is run, and on what opportunities are developed to better the club at the heart of the community . They could put the wheels in motion, and trust the fans, as we indeed did and have trusted them over the years to do the right thing at every turn by our club. Just 'Believe' selling consortium, and the right people will come forward to take up the mantle rather than the sausage roll budget for their mates. Is the Hibs model not selling NEW shares therefore diluting the value and percentage of the current shares? I don't see tat being acceptable to our board members anymore than it was for the newcos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibbles old paperboy Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Not sure why St Mirren fans holding 51% of the shares via a buy out organised by SMISA = just what we need according to somner 9 but more or less the same bunch of St Mirren fans holding 51% of the shares via a buy our organised by 10000Hours would = a disaster according to the same poster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rabuddies Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 (edited) Don't all new share issues require to be underwritten? If existing shareholders are underwriting the new issue then they must purchase all shares not taken up by "fans" or other investors. However, my understanding is that there has been a deal by the current holding company to convert the bank debt into new shares (£4.5M is quoted). So if the share issue is 51% of the new total number of shares it will not require to be underwritten rather the holding will retain any unsold shares, possibly meaning they will retain over control of the club. The Hibs deal requires some closer scrutiny as it would appear that the exising crew (Farmer, Petrie, etc) are not going away, stating that it is an "opportunity" for fans to contribute to the ownership of the club. But to get the 51% the fans have to buy £2.5M worth of shares. A big ask I feel. Perhaps the holding company are confident that they will get £1M - £2M pumped into the club and still control the club? Edited to add: It appears that some existing loans are being converted into a single mortgage which will require to be paid by the company. It doesn't say if this includes any loans that the holding company took out to repay the Bank debt. Watch this space. Edited December 29, 2014 by rabuddies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Is the Hibs model not selling NEW shares therefore diluting the value and percentage of the current shares? I don't see tat being acceptable to our board members anymore than it was for the newcos Not sure why St Mirren fans holding 51% of the shares via a buy out organised by SMISA = just what we need according to somner 9 but more or less the same bunch of St Mirren fans holding 51% of the shares via a buy our organised by 10000Hours would = a disaster according to the same poster. Don't all new share issues require to be underwritten? If existing shareholders are underwriting the new issue then they must purchase all shares not taken up by "fans" or other investors. However, my understanding is that there has been a deal by the current holding company to convert the bank debt into new shares (£4.5M is quoted). So if the share issue is 51% of the new total number of shares it will not require to be underwritten rather the holding will retain any unsold shares, possibly meaning they will retain over control of the club. The Hibs deal requires some closer scrutiny as it would appear that the exising crew (Farmer, Petrie, etc) are not going away, stating that it is an "opportunity" for fans to contribute to the ownership of the club. But to get the 51% the fans have to buy £2.5M worth of shares. A big ask I feel. Not sure who this other poster referred to above is? Perhaps the holding company are confident that they will get £1M - £2M pumped into the club and still control the club? Edited to add: It appears that some existing loans are being converted into a single mortgage which will require to be paid by the company. It doesn't say if this includes any loans that the holding company took out to repay the Bank debt. Watch this space. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagleybuddies Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 It is possible to put all sort of restrictions and covenants in the Sale & Purchase Agreement. It is also impossible for a club like ours to afford any debt of any sort, now or in the futrure. So let the sellers and buyers legally commit to NEVER charging the clubs assets (The new Love St and the Training Ground especially) to raise debt and to now put these assets in Trust for the people of Paisley. If the new owners are successful with player development and increased crowds then they can enjoy the benefits of increased cashflow, but must not be able to sell us down the river. We would not survive the shite that Rangers are going through and would die if the wrong people got control so the current shareholders have to do the right thing, even if that means they take a lower price and creating that Trust. SMTID Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagleybuddies Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Remember we were bust before the good councillors of Paisley granted planning permission at Love Street for a supermarket that never got built, that paid off the bank, that built our new ground, and our training facility, and put a few bob in the bank. The existing shareholders were wiped out before that, so the assets belong to Paisley as the town supported the club in its hour of need. Sorry folkes but its not your club to sell even if you have share certificates! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Not sure why St Mirren fans holding 51% of the shares via a buy out organised by SMISA = just what we need according to somner 9 but more or less the same bunch of St Mirren fans holding 51% of the shares via a buy our organised by 10000Hours would = a disaster according to the same poster. 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, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted December 29, 2014 Report Share Posted December 29, 2014 Bagley, alas, you're suggestion is repugnant with ownership. Owners need to be able to do with property as they wish. Even if the board and the buyers entered into such an agreement, its unlikely it would ever be enforceable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeeBud Posted December 30, 2014 Report Share Posted December 30, 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, I think that in the "ideal" world that would be true but if there is a funding shortfall (maybe not enough people pledging/paying) and people are requested to put in more there is no question that somewhere down the line they'll want something for it. 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.