pozbaird Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 I wouldn't be feeding him, folks. He unravelled weeks ago, and is clearly now beyond reason. Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Where is the money coming from to facilitate the buy-out? Same place GLS's punt is coming from... The fans. He gets a nice investment with guaranteed pay out and gets to be king. So eventually seeing a return on his shares. What does the club get out of it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 I wouldn't be feeding him, folks. He unravelled weeks ago, and is clearly now beyond reason. GLS? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Same place GLS's punt is coming from... The fans. He gets a nice investment with guaranteed pay out and gets to be king. So eventually seeing a return on his shares. What does the club get out of it? Fresh eyes, engagement with the fans and an end to the uncertainty of the sale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Same place GLS's punt is coming from... The fans. He gets a nice investment with guaranteed pay out and gets to be king. So eventually seeing a return on his shares. What does the club get out of it? The selling consortium want their wedge up front without waiting five more years - again, who is putting up the money to facilitate a regime change at Wee Sellik Park? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 The selling consortium want their wedge up front without waiting five more years - again, who is putting up the money to facilitate a regime change at Wee Sellik Park? If you want to make GLS king, then he will be. But all money raised will got to a long pay out to him, not in invested in the club. Will that make it better than now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) If you want to make GLS king, then he will be. But all money raised will got to a long pay out to him, not in invested in the club. Will that make it better than now?No, I don't want to make anyone king, but I think they should step into that role to ensure a smooth transition from a long standing chairman for the following reasons...1. He's ponying up the biggest lump sum to facilitate the change after no-one has in over five years. 2. He knows what is involved in being 'king'. 3. He is a fan. I am a fan. I have my head screwed on, but I wouldn't have a fcuking clue how to be a fit and proper 'king' of a full-time professional football club with all the responsibilty that entails. The first thing I'd do (after shitting my pants and updating the HoF boards), would be to phone Dave King and call him a wank. I'm ruling myself out. No-one vote for me in the Lord Pityme democratic process designed to elect a fan to be 'SG MkII' please, it's for the best. You wouldn't want to hear what I'd call Lawell. Edited July 3, 2015 by pozbaird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 No, I don't want to make anyone king, but I think they should step into that role to ensure a smooth transition from a long standing chairman for the following reasons... 1. He's ponying up the biggest lump sum to facilitate the change after no-one has in over five years. 2. He knows what is involved in being 'king'. 3. He is a fan. I am a fan. I have my head screwed on, but I wouldn't have a fcuking clue how to be a fit and proper 'king' of a full-time professional football club with all tne responsibilty that entails. The first thing I'd do (after shitting my pants and updating the HoF boards), would be to phone Dave King and call him a wank. I'm ruling myself out. No-one vote for me please, it's for the best. Somehow just knew the HoF boards would be in there somewhere... Maybe we are not so unalike... apart from my good looks, GSOH, and eye for detail, and your.............. Err...... HoF boards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 Somehow just knew the HoF boards would be in there somewhere... Maybe we are not so unalike... apart from my good looks, GSOH, and eye for detail, and your.............. Err...... HoF boards! You must admit though, mentioning the HoF boards is a change from getting the word 'Atkinson' into every post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faraway saint Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 You must admit though, mentioning the HoF boards is a change from getting the word 'Atkinson' into every post. Not much in it, to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aldo_j Posted July 3, 2015 Report Share Posted July 3, 2015 (edited) No, I don't want to make anyone king, but I think they should step into that role to ensure a smooth transition from a long standing chairman for the following reasons... 1. He's ponying up the biggest lump sum to facilitate the change after no-one has in over five years. 2. He knows what is involved in being 'king'. 3. He is a fan. I am a fan. I have my head screwed on, but I wouldn't have a fcuking clue how to be a fit and proper 'king' of a full-time professional football club with all the responsibilty that entails. The first thing I'd do (after shitting my pants and updating the HoF boards), would be to phone Dave King and call him a wank. I'm ruling myself out. No-one vote for me in the Lord Pityme democratic process designed to elect a fan to be 'SG MkII' please, it's for the best. You wouldn't want to hear what I'd call Lawell. Disappointed to hear that. You were my first pick, at least the press releases would be amusing. Irrelevant, but amusing ???? Edited July 3, 2015 by aldo_j Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Someone voted on buy the fans post buy out. Whoever that is, if democratically voted is the right person at the right time. If you look at this as being a phased buy out then I think that's what would happen. Phase 1 would be a joint buy out by GLS and SMISA with presumably the shares 'split' on a pro rata basis depending on how much each party has contributed. Any vote for who should be put up for election to the club board would be by SMISA members. I suppose an ordinary shareholder could call an egm but as GLS & SMISA would be the majority shareholders I'd doubt it would be worthwhile. If you want to try and influence this one way or another then you'd need to become a SMISA member. Phase 2 would involve fund raising and increasing SMISA membership to then buy out GLS. Once there is more detail available on this I will then decide if I want to be involved and become a SMISA member. Some of the things I can think of at the moment would be the amount to be paid to buy out GLS, would that be agreed at the outset or in the future, would it simply cover the amount of the initial buy out or would it be based of the future value of the shares ? Remember the share price can also decrease. What if someone contributed funds for phase 2 but didn't become a SMISA member would they have any input ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 If you want to make GLS king, then he will be. But all money raised will got to a long pay out to him, not in invested in the club. Will that make it better than now? The money raised for any buy out will never go to the club, get over it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 The money raised for any buy out will never go to the club, get over it! You're wasting your time. The concept of SG & Co being paid somewhere between 800k and 1.25 million to step aside and allow buyers to take over the reins is wasted on him. He probably thought the first thing Fergus McCann should have done was to walk into Baird's Bar, round up twelve Sellik tap' wearing punters and installed them as the new BoD - while handing them everything he had so they could 'invest it in the club'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 The money raised for any buy out will never go to the club, get over it! But it will go to paying Scott back, possibly with interest? Again i would point out that hearts fans have put more into the club now than Budge, but they own nothing, she is in complete control with no absolute clause to hand ownership over to the fans. I see that as a substantial risk! Scott is paid back over time with interest, however without a detailed, binding clause that ownership must transfer by a specified date if the funds are there, then the fans would simply be paying to make Scott chairman and majority shareholder, with little say on what path the club takes. This is what i have a problem with where there is no laid down process to deliver majority shareholding to the fans. Can you imagine the shit storm if Scott pulls moves that most disagree with, but he decides are right? Memberships would be shredded quicker than the deid clubs accounts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyg Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Scott is paid back over time with interest, however without a detailed, binding clause that ownership must transfer by a specified date if the funds are there, then the fans would simply be paying to make Scott chairman and majority shareholder, with little say on what path the club takes. This is what i have a problem with where there is no laid down process to deliver majority shareholding to the fans. You think this hasn't already been discussed ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) You think this hasn't already been discussed ?It probably has Billy but i would like to see a detailed process with iron clad clauses flagging up the milestones to when a transfer of majority shareholding would take place.Without that members would simply be paying to make Scott chairman and majority shareholder, and if that is what he wants why doesn't he make the consortium an offer they will accept? Why should my potential subs go towards paying for a chairman/majority shareholder who has not been through a democratic selection process? Remember he tried to flog his shares through one of 10000 hours failed attempts in a very murky way, now he wants others to help fund his majority shareholding and chairmanship. He could just buy it himself! Edited July 4, 2015 by Lord Pityme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluto Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 (edited) Och, come on!!! Get off your me me me band wagon! All you've seen is a prospective post on a daft diddy website and you are using that to predicate a zillion misgivings. This way madness lies. I am never gung-ho about investing in anything or anyone but I can see (and believe) that in the fullness of time this could be an attractive investment for Buddies who want their team to continue. I could think of (I'd wager on ) many more ways in which this could be f**ked up than you can imagine - but I would prefer to believe that the Buddies concerned can find their way through the obstacles that might inevitably arise.... Give it and them a chance before you find your own personal doom, please. Edited July 5, 2015 by bluto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted July 4, 2015 Report Share Posted July 4, 2015 Och, come on!!! Get off your me me me band wagon! All you've seen is a prospective post on a daft diddy website and you are using that to predicate a zillion misgivings. This way madness lies. I am never gung-ho about investing in anything or anyone but I can see (and believe) that in the fullness of time this could be an attractive investment for Buddies who want their team to continue. I could think (I'd wager on ) of many more ways in which this could be f**ked up than you can imagine - but I would prefer to believe that the Buddies concerned can find their way through the obstacles that might inevitably arise.... Give it and them a chance before you find your own personal doom, please. Your probably right. i mean its not like. Scott has previous for trying to get saints fans to help him recoup his worthless shares when the consortium locked him out. Yeah just let him do what he fancies, and raise a load of cash to help him achieve his goal, what could possibly go wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TsuMirren Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Your probably right. i mean its not like. Scott has previous for trying to get saints fans to help him recoup his worthless shares when the consortium locked him out. Yeah just let him do what he fancies, and raise a load of cash to help him achieve his goal, what could possibly go wrong? Are all non-consortium shares worthless? You didn't like the English group, the Argies or either 10000 Hours bid and now you're all over Gordon. I wonder how you took to Bob Earlie or even the work of Craig/Todd/Corson. Just what sort of model would you approve of? I imagine you're fine with the invest, take the risk and pass on preferably at a loss that's preferred by most. Sadly, no chance of happening whatsoever. Gordon also has "previous" of having a realistic and sustainable offer rejected. He was brought in by Richard, but it was at a time when supporters were going on about needing people with SMFC DNA on board. They did that and were ripped to bits by people who'd gone well beyond challenging for benefit and were running naked through f**kwitville. Basically, within a day those people has gone from accusing the board of screwing Gordon to calling Gordon every name under the sun for coming on board and looking to...gasp, wait for it...recoup money for his shares. Oh and all this "I need to see" is fine, we all do. Just, drop the shite as there's enough work for SMISA & Gordon to do without wading through that. Why not contact SMISA with a clearly written idea of what you want to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Are all non-consortium shares worthless? You didn't like the English group, the Argies or either 10000 Hours bid and now you're all over Gordon. I wonder how you took to Bob Earlie or even the work of Craig/Todd/Corson. Just what sort of model would you approve of? I imagine you're fine with the invest, take the risk and pass on preferably at a loss that's preferred by most. Sadly, no chance of happening whatsoever. Gordon also has "previous" of having a realistic and sustainable offer rejected. He was brought in by Richard, but it was at a time when supporters were going on about needing people with SMFC DNA on board. They did that and were ripped to bits by people who'd gone well beyond challenging for benefit and were running naked through f**kwitville. Basically, within a day those people has gone from accusing the board of screwing Gordon to calling Gordon every name under the sun for coming on board and looking to...gasp, wait for it...recoup money for his shares. Oh and all this "I need to see" is fine, we all do. Just, drop the shite as there's enough work for SMISA & Gordon to do without wading through that. Why not contact SMISA with a clearly written idea of what you want to see. Last thing first, I know Smisa are still working through the detail, how do I know this? Because it is in the first post on this thread. As for all the other stuff you've slung in here, i wouldn't know where to start, Argie bid? Was anyone OK with that? english Bid... We never got to the point of getting any detail on their intentions as the Consortium dropped them like a stone with a wafer thin excuse when it looked like the Argies would pony up more dough than the English! (Surprised they never re-branded the stadium Los Malvinas in honour of their wedge) Scott was screwed by the consortium, after project managing the new stadium. He then in cahoots with that long time saints fan tried to flog the share he thought were worthless through a cockamamie scheme. Now he would like to become chairman and majority shareholder with... Guess what a hefty wedge of fan contributions. So please tell me why is it wrong to ask for the detail on the proposed deal, showing us where, when and at what cost a transfer of ownership to Smisa would take place? Or should we just sleepwalk into a multimillion pound deal with no idea how, when or by whom we could be screwed? I am sure Scott wouldn't get screwed like that again with the benefit of hindsight, why should we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bud77 Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Last thing first, I know Smisa are still working through the detail, how do I know this? Because it is in the first post on this thread. As for all the other stuff you've slung in here, i wouldn't know where to start, Argie bid? Was anyone OK with that? english Bid... We never got to the point of getting any detail on their intentions as the Consortium dropped them like a stone with a wafer thin excuse when it looked like the Argies would pony up more dough than the English! (Surprised they never re-branded the stadium Los Malvinas in honour of their wedge) Scott was screwed by the consortium, after project managing the new stadium. He then in cahoots with that long time saints fan tried to flog the share he thought were worthless through a cockamamie scheme. Now he would like to become chairman and majority shareholder with... Guess what a hefty wedge of fan contributions. So please tell me why is it wrong to ask for the detail on the proposed deal, showing us where, when and at what cost a transfer of ownership to Smisa would take place? Or should we just sleepwalk into a multimillion pound deal with no idea how, when or by whom we could be screwed? I am sure Scott wouldn't get screwed like that again with the benefit of hindsight, why should we? So let me get this right, even though you're aware SMISA & GLS have still to discuss the details, you want to know those details right now ? I would imagine the discussions will take some time, probably involving lawyers and legal contracts. If you want to know about the discussions as they're ongoing you would need to join SMISA. As for me once SMISA or GLS make the details public I will then make a decision whether to back the bid or not. At the moment I'm in favour, in principle and I'd like to hope that SMISA are capable of getting a good deal sorted for the fans. I also wouldn't have any real issues if GLS was to make a small profit on the deal as he would initially be providing the majority of the funds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 So let me get this right, even though you're aware SMISA & GLS have still to discuss the details, you want to know those details right now ? I would imagine the discussions will take some time, probably involving lawyers and legal contracts. If you want to know about the discussions as they're ongoing you would need to join SMISA. As for me once SMISA or GLS make the details public I will then make a decision whether to back the bid or not. At the moment I'm in favour, in principle and I'd like to hope that SMISA are capable of getting a good deal sorted for the fans. I also wouldn't have any real issues if GLS was to make a small profit on the deal as he would initially be providing the majority of the funds. Ah so it is good to know the details before deciding to commit and back/not back the proposal.... Well thanks for that. At the moment with no detail whatsoever i cant make any decision in principle, look at the situation Scott found himself in when the consortium did the dirty on him! Here is a big point for me. Who will be on the board? Scott has already grabbed chairmanship, with Smisa having just one board member, that means if Scott appoints/approves the other board members the fans will have a 'Voice in the Boardroom' but no real say as Scott's board will have the majority. So who else will be on it? Will Ken McGeoch (the other major shareholder) be back in the boardroom with his sevco connections? Will that well known saints fan who tried to get Scott involved before be invited in by his associate? There is a lot of discussion and dealing to be done, but what is needed more than anything is complete transparency, because if any of the above try to pull a stunt and keep people who are signed up in the dark the membership will drop like a stone. Consider this.... The current board were at pains to get Chick Young to plead their case after the fiasco of letting Danny go so the club could be taken in a different direction only to giveTC the job, then giving GT a rookie the job at a critical time, even though they had considered in their words perhaps getting a more experienced manager. Gilmour came out and said 'over the piece we have got more things right, than wrong'.... In the last two weeks they have imposed without consultation a 'Pals Only' match day bar, and let Celtic takeover the stadium and branding.... They are certainly working hard to redress that 'right/wrong' balance! So before anyone gets involved in committing to back this proposal we need the transparency that has been sadly lacking at the club for several years now, lets not get fooled like Scott and McGeoch did..! If you can re-post where i have asked to have all the "details right now" please re-post it.... Right now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Ah so it is good to know the details before deciding to commit and back/not back the proposal.... Well thanks for that. At the moment with no detail whatsoever i cant make any decision in principle, look at the situation Scott found himself in when the consortium did the dirty on him! Here is a big point for me. Who will be on the board? Scott has already grabbed chairmanship, with Smisa having just one board member, that means if Scott appoints/approves the other board members the fans will have a 'Voice in the Boardroom' but no real say as Scott's board will have the majority. So who else will be on it? Will Ken McGeoch (the other major shareholder) be back in the boardroom with his sevco connections? Will that well known saints fan who tried to get Scott involved before be invited in by his associate? There is a lot of discussion and dealing to be done, but what is needed more than anything is complete transparency, because if any of the above try to pull a stunt and keep people who are signed up in the dark the membership will drop like a stone. Consider this.... The current board were at pains to get Chick Young to plead their case after the fiasco of letting Danny go so the club could be taken in a different direction only to giveTC the job, then giving GT a rookie the job at a critical time, even though they had considered in their words perhaps getting a more experienced manager. Gilmour came out and said 'over the piece we have got more things right, than wrong'.... In the last two weeks they have imposed without consultation a 'Pals Only' match day bar, and let Celtic takeover the stadium and branding.... They are certainly working hard to redress that 'right/wrong' balance! So before anyone gets involved in committing to back this proposal we need the transparency that has been sadly lacking at the club for several years now, lets not get fooled like Scott and McGeoch did..! If you can re-post where i have asked to have all the "details right now" please re-post it.... Right now! If you ever suffer from insomnia, this is one way to cure it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pozbaird Posted July 5, 2015 Report Share Posted July 5, 2015 Ah so it is good to know the details before deciding to commit and back/not back the proposal.... Well thanks for that. At the moment with no detail whatsoever i cant make any decision in principle, look at the situation Scott found himself in when the consortium did the dirty on him! Here is a big point for me. Who will be on the board? Scott has already grabbed chairmanship, with Smisa having just one board member, that means if Scott appoints/approves the other board members the fans will have a 'Voice in the Boardroom' but no real say as Scott's board will have the majority. So who else will be on it? Will Ken McGeoch (the other major shareholder) be back in the boardroom with his sevco connections? Will that well known saints fan who tried to get Scott involved before be invited in by his associate? There is a lot of discussion and dealing to be done, but what is needed more than anything is complete transparency, because if any of the above try to pull a stunt and keep people who are signed up in the dark the membership will drop like a stone. Consider this.... The current board were at pains to get Chick Young to plead their case after the fiasco of letting Danny go so the club could be taken in a different direction only to giveTC the job, then giving GT a rookie the job at a critical time, even though they had considered in their words perhaps getting a more experienced manager. Gilmour came out and said 'over the piece we have got more things right, than wrong'.... In the last two weeks they have imposed without consultation a 'Pals Only' match day bar, and let Celtic takeover the stadium and branding.... They are certainly working hard to redress that 'right/wrong' balance! So before anyone gets involved in committing to back this proposal we need the transparency that has been sadly lacking at the club for several years now, lets not get fooled like Scott and McGeoch did..! If you can re-post where i have asked to have all the "details right now" please re-post it.... Right now! ^^^^ Everyone is a cnut and I hate them all. 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.