rea Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 I used to agree with you but the evidence is not really there to support the fact that fans will run clubs any better than a bunch of dispassionate directors (in general I mean, I'm not talking about our current BOD). IMO fans will dump the club when results go against us, leaving us with a shortfall and financial problems which result in things like our best player being sold in mid season to pay the wages. Fans are the worst people for running any business. They'd run it with their hearts not their heads. Most of the fans whining on this forum this season clearly can't do even the most basic mental arithmetic. I'm not just talking about the obvious forum clowns either. We're hearing from people who appear to be reasonably intelligent accusing our board of "penny pinching" etc whilst displaying no obvious understanding of why cutting costs was and remains a necessity. Sorry but fans are not the answer to this IMO. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise though. That is why the Structure behind any Fan groups is always so important. At 10000hours the most amount of work we had to do for funders, sellers and members was getting the struture (the boring stuff ) right so that a knee jerk reaction from members would not impact the Club.... FO is not a panacea, and some folk treat it like it will solve all problems, it wont, but it does spread the responsibilty amoung those that love a Club the most...you the Fans Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
class of 76-77 Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Well, for it to happen, folk are going to need to step up to learn about it and give it a go directly, it will take folk who have been life long fans to make it happen not folk like me from the "outside" having a bright idea I'm up for giving it a chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 I used to agree with you but the evidence is not really there to support the fact that fans will run clubs any better than a bunch of dispassionate directors (in general I mean, I'm not talking about our current BOD). IMO fans will dump the club when results go against us, leaving us with a shortfall and financial problems which result in things like our best player being sold in mid season to pay the wages. Fans are the worst people for running any business. They'd run it with their hearts not their heads. Most of the fans whining on this forum this season clearly can't do even the most basic mental arithmetic. I'm not just talking about the obvious forum clowns either. We're hearing from people who appear to be reasonably intelligent accusing our board of "penny pinching" etc whilst displaying no obvious understanding of why cutting costs was and remains a necessity. Sorry but fans are not the answer to this IMO. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise though. *crash* *smash* "Bloody hell, what was that thunderous noise?" Ah it's just Oaksoft entering the debate with nothing but accusations and not one answer. We can't know why it was a necessity, because we haven't seen the cash flow. What some fans will, probably most actually, wonder is how you can go from winning the Cup to bagging a Manager, bringing in lesser quality of players, releasing numerous back room staff and replacing them with people already at the club. Do you know how that can happen...even a mere smattering or a reasoned response would be nice. I'm not going to highlight everything, but we got rid of Austin, fitness people, analysis people and never replaced them. We didn't renew Danny's contract, but there's no way all of that went on a raise for Gary and Jim to become coaches. We released players, sometimes paying them off, but the quality of the replacements has been such that the drawdown caused by releasing was surely negated by the lower wages of the replacements. Obvously, you could point at sponsorship or crowds being down. But then crowds are down because we appointed then fired Tommy Craig, sponsorship etc could be down to CK being pretty much alone in that department. There is some penny pinching, but on the whole I'm blaming the board for some unmitigated disasters of decisions and in running aspects of the club in the same way a local community group would run a bake sale. Now, perhaps you know that the sale of Kenny McLean would have happened anyway and that no matter what we'd have had to cut costs. Again, present the facts or get off your damned high horse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beyond our ken Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 I had a fairly long chat with SG before the Motherwell game. He told me that all previously interested parties who were looking to buy the club have now left the scene, there is NO party currently working on a deal to buy the club. The board are open to fan ownership, they are open to a model that would see the fans take control via a subscription model over a number of years but crucially it would need to be backed by some sort of guarantee. So in theory say if the majority shareholding was to be sold, let's say for £1.2m which was the price that 10000Hours bid at. If the 1200 fans who subscribed previously each took out a financial commitment to pay £1000 over a 5 year period that would be £17 a month (on an interest free basis). That would raise £1.2m over 5 years and the club would be ours. Of course the asking price on relegation is difficult to quantify. I don't know how the material value of the club will be affected following relegation. In the 3.5 years that have passed since the 10000hours bid was rejected the fans subscriptions would have raised £504K. Could it be that the "guarantee" you speak of would be a wee carrot the board are dangling out there to see if the support will set up a hearts-style fund that can be commuted to share ownership over time? there could be some mileage in this, especially if there was indication of how many persons would put in an up-front payment of £100-£1000, it could be that a few hundred fans have the wherewithall to do this. they could then rest on that sum or take out a fresh monthly payment to secure a second batch of rights/shares/votes/whatever-or maybe they could have their larger up-front payment rebated as the rest of the support make their monthly payments. The guaranteed amount to the consortium could reflect the price they are willing to accept (the higher the price, the lower the guarantee and vice versa). The less palatable part would be that those paying monthly would need to be locked in as legally liable to pay their agreed amount to avoid shafting of the up-front payers so that equal rights are secured for all regardless of how they pay. If 100 people can afford £1000 up front, and a further 500 can afford £100 or more then the first £150k is in the bag, if there are still community clubs loans (or whatever they are) to take advantage of then there might be a deal there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 If the majority shareholding are open for some sort of fan ownership model spread over a number of years, then surely it's upto to them and SMISA (as the main supporters body) to engage to see if this is possible. REA was big enough to front things last time and it may be that he could be involved in an advisory role to SMISA but something needs to start happening soon as a large section of support (including myself) are sick to the back teeth seeing / hearing the same old same old on and off the pitch every year and nobody driving the club forward. Its about time the majority shareholding and SMISA stood up to be counted, silence is not really an option but I suspect it will be the choosen route. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Could it be that the "guarantee" you speak of would be a wee carrot the board are dangling out there to see if the support will set up a hearts-style fund that can be commuted to share ownership over time? there could be some mileage in this, especially if there was indication of how many persons would put in an up-front payment of £100-£1000, it could be that a few hundred fans have the wherewithall to do this. they could then rest on that sum or take out a fresh monthly payment to secure a second batch of rights/shares/votes/whatever-or maybe they could have their larger up-front payment rebated as the rest of the support make their monthly payments. The guaranteed amount to the consortium could reflect the price they are willing to accept (the higher the price, the lower the guarantee and vice versa). The less palatable part would be that those paying monthly would need to be locked in as legally liable to pay their agreed amount to avoid shafting of the up-front payers so that equal rights are secured for all regardless of how they pay. If 100 people can afford £1000 up front, and a further 500 can afford £100 or more then the first £150k is in the bag, if there are still community clubs loans (or whatever they are) to take advantage of then there might be a deal there There are now new legal forms that did not exist at the time of 10000hours that can provide the "legally liable" bit without too much paperwork to make it impractical to do it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 I presume that you are Sommner 9 judging by your anti - fan ownership stance. Now where have i ever said, hinted or alluded to being "anti-fan ownership"..? 'Anti-FanBoy' I'll give you that, guilty as charged! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 If the majority shareholding are open for some sort of fan ownership model spread over a number of years, then surely it's upto to them and SMISA (as the main supporters body) to engage to see if this is possible. REA was big enough to front things last time and it may be that he could be involved in an advisory role to SMISA but something needs to start happening soon as a large section of support (including myself) are sick to the back teeth seeing / hearing the same old same old on and off the pitch every year and nobody driving the club forward. Its about time the majority shareholding and SMISA stood up to be counted, silence is not really an option but I suspect it will be the choosen route. Infomation regarding the background work on 10000hours was offered to both SMISA and the Fans Council that was in 2013. Happy to share what thoughts i have on the matter with anyone that wants to come and see me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted April 9, 2015 Author Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 If the majority shareholding are open for some sort of fan ownership model spread over a number of years, then surely it's upto to them and SMISA (as the main supporters body) to engage to see if this is possible. REA was big enough to front things last time and it may be that he could be involved in an advisory role to SMISA but something needs to start happening soon as a large section of support (including myself) are sick to the back teeth seeing / hearing the same old same old on and off the pitch every year and nobody driving the club forward. Its about time the majority shareholding and SMISA stood up to be counted, silence is not really an option but I suspect it will be the choosen route. And therein lies the biggest obstacle to Fan Ownership at SMFC! Everyone thinks somebody else, or any 'Body' should be fronting it up instead of them-self. Smisa do not as i understand have the inclination to do it, and why should they? They've never promised or intimated that is what they are about. That said as Saints fans I am sure they would play their part. It will never happen until someone, or ones feel its right to approach the support (buses, smisa, sellers etc) to canvass who will back it, and what option/proposal it is best felt would appeal to the majority. Then a time-frame on debate and actions could!!! Be agreed to move the idea forward. So who could that possibly be? Well the board aren't going to initiate it! That just leaves.....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 As I said on this forum months ago, the only good thing that can come out of our relegation is that the fan ownership model is adopted. (Thankfully) no consortium will give Gilmour and co anything like the sum they think the club is worth now that we have been relegated. The only sustainable model for running football clubs of our sort of size or smaller (so this goes for more or less every club in Scotland bar the OF) is fan ownership because it is not possible to make a profit which would interest an (honest) investor, and a sugar daddy might only come along once every few generations, if at all. Even consortiums of passionate local businessmen don't seem to be around to take over from the existing one in our case. As for Oaksoft's suggestion that it would all go tits up if fans took the huff when results turned bad, it's simply misconceived: 1. Firstly, fans are far less likely to take the huff than an owner with no connection to the club. 2. Secondly, and more importantly, the club has to be run on the basis that it only spends what it earns (as it is at the moment). The money coming in monthly from the fans should not be considered part of that revenue, at least for an initial period of years when either the old board is being paid back in installments or the monthly subscriptions are being built up into a cash reserve. We have no monthly subscriptions from fans at the moment, so clearly we are spending only what we earn at the gate, from sponsorship and from TV money. We would be no worse off under fan ownership. Perhaps at some point in the future, fans' monthly payments could be used to top up certain budgets once there is a reserve in place, but we should not be spending every penny of it from day one. As for whether fans would run the club well or badly, it's a non-point. The same goes for any businessman - just look at the shambles we are in. The point is that we would always know that the club would be run by a committee of fans elected by the fans with the club's best interests at heart. That is infinitely preferable to any other model. There will no doubt be ups and downs as there are under the current structure, but there will be a sustainable club there for generations to come to support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Not sure about an up front payment, but I would commit to £10 or possibly £15 a month. An initiative like this might kick-start the club which seems to be dying on its arse with no light at the end of the tunnel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Not sure about an up front payment, but I would commit to £10 or possibly £15 a month. An initiative like this might kick-start the club which seems to be dying on its arse with no light at the end of the tunnel. The new products that are available to CIC's etc mean that you can turn a commitment of say £15 per month for a number of years into an advanced lump sum. so Fan can commit to a little each month but seller get a large amount of cash up front Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 The new products that are available to CIC's etc mean that you can turn a commitment of say £15 per month for a number of years into an advanced lump sum. so Fan can commit to a little each month but seller get a large amount of cash up front So it's like Ticketus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 So it's like Ticketus? eh nope....no all personal stuff no connect or liability to Club....but nice try Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 eh nope....no all personal stuff no connect or liability to Club....but nice try What's with the "nice try" stuff? It wasn't a snide comment. To an uneducated moron like me it looks like this is a process where you get a loan based on a future income stream - which is what Ticketus was. I'd imagine there are plenty of differences but that aspect looks the same to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 The selling consortium won't hang around forever, and will eventually sell to a bidder that may not fit their perfect criteria. That is a terrifying thought and I'd much rather we pursued the route of fan ownership again particularly if there are now products that can guarantee the up front money that the selling consortium are looking for. The main concern I have then is who would man the board of directors. You would be looking for some sensible business minded individuals from within the membership to sit on the board and take the club forward. People with a lot of time to give, for no reward. People who would have a thick enough skin to cope with the huge amount of abuse that would come their way if things weren't going well. I can't really imagine anyone sensible wanting to put themselves forward on that basis, but I am sure there are ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 What's with the "nice try" stuff? It wasn't a snide comment. To an uneducated moron like me it looks like this is a process where you get a loan based on a future income stream - which is what Ticketus was. I'd imagine there are plenty of differences but that aspect looks the same to me. He's talking about a personal loan type product I assume. So if you want £1K, you go to your bank, they give you the money, you make regular payments, with interest, to pay it back over a period of time. In this case the upfront money would go to the sellers, leaving you with the debt to repay via your monthly installments. There is no tie to future income streams of the club, it's tied to your own personal income stream ! This is the sort of model that SG was alluding to as it removes the risk to the sellers of the buyers making a few direct debits then taking the huff and stopping them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 The selling consortium won't hang around forever, and will eventually sell to a bidder that may not fit their perfect criteria. That is a terrifying thought and I'd much rather we pursued the route of fan ownership again particularly if there are now products that can guarantee the up front money that the selling consortium are looking for. The main concern I have then is who would man the board of directors. You would be looking for some sensible business minded individuals from within the membership to sit on the board and take the club forward. People with a lot of time to give, for no reward. People who would have a thick enough skin to cope with the huge amount of abuse that would come their way if things weren't going well. I can't really imagine anyone sensible wanting to put themselves forward on that basis, but I am sure there are ! I don't think anyone who willingly puts themselves forward could be classed as sensible ;) He's talking about a personal loan type product I assume. So if you want £1K, you go to your bank, they give you the money, you make regular payments, with interest, to pay it back over a period of time. In this case the upfront money would go to the sellers, leaving you with the debt to repay via your monthly installments. There is no tie to future income streams of the club, it's tied to your own personal income stream ! This is the sort of model that SG was alluding to as it removes the risk to the sellers of the buyers making a few direct debits then taking the huff and stopping them. Fair enough. My experience of loans starts and ends with my mortgage, which was complicated enough to understand, so no surprise I didn't really get what was being proposed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 What's with the "nice try" stuff? It wasn't a snide comment. To an uneducated moron like me it looks like this is a process where you get a loan based on a future income stream - which is what Ticketus was. I'd imagine there are plenty of differences but that aspect looks the same to me. Apologies then. All loans are a "process where you get a loan based on a future income stream" but this is one not tied to the assets of a Club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 He's talking about a personal loan type product I assume. So if you want £1K, you go to your bank, they give you the money, you make regular payments, with interest, to pay it back over a period of time. In this case the upfront money would go to the sellers, leaving you with the debt to repay via your monthly installments. There is no tie to future income streams of the club, it's tied to your own personal income stream ! This is the sort of model that SG was alluding to as it removes the risk to the sellers of the buyers making a few direct debits then taking the huff and stopping them. correct. only a few years ago this was impossible to do without masses of paperwork and suspicious looking forms...that is now no longer the case. If the Fans want it the money can now be raised much easier, no need for big funding applications that make up large %age of total funds, risk is spread over wholoe membership Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 Mis-read your post on the bus, using my phone but not my specs! i thought you were implying that 10kh failed partly due to the fans not fronting up reading from solid ground and with occular aids in place I can see my howler (that is not a pet name for anything) Cool. I honestly didn't see muddy water in my post! Appreciate your reply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnus Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 correct. only a few years ago this was impossible to do without masses of paperwork and suspicious looking forms...that is now no longer the case. If the Fans want it the money can now be raised much easier, no need for big funding applications that make up large %age of total funds, risk is spread over wholoe membership SMISA should ask KPMG or PWC to value SM FC as a going concern. We could work back from there and establish how much cash and guarantees are required. The current BoD valuation seems totally unrealistic if the business is losing money and has cash flow problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 SMISA should ask KPMG or PWC to value SM FC as a going concern. We could work back from there and establish how much cash and guarantees are required. The current BoD valuation seems totally unrealistic if the business is losing money and has cash flow problems. ok but it will cost you 10k to get that question answered. IMHO needs to work the other way around. you can pay what you can afford...what can you afford depends on how many members you have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 ok but it will cost you 10k to get that question answered. IMHO needs to work the other way around. you can pay what you can afford...what can you afford depends on how many members you have. You pay what you can afford for what? Nobody pays anything for anything without knowing what they are buying. There would have to be due diligence carried out into the state of the club's finances, its assets, its debts and so on. The valuation could easily be built into that process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rea Posted April 9, 2015 Report Share Posted April 9, 2015 You pay what you can afford for what? Nobody pays anything for anything without knowing what they are buying. There would have to be due diligence carried out into the state of the club's finances, its assets, its debts and so on. The valuation could easily be built into that process. due diligence if different. that can all be done. the choice is over paying one of the "big four" to do or getting stuck in a doing it yourself. the reason two of us from 10000hours went on the board was to do the due diligence from the inside, it is fairly straight forward, it is not a big or complicated company. the figure of what it is worth is not relevant....it is what are those selling it for willing to accept. As a football Club it makes no profit for distribution to Shareholders and so in any traditional business sense it is worth nothing 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.