St Mirren Agm

[TsuMirren]

So the consortium are 'just looking for their money back'.

While I can understand that, is it realistic? Surely it should be a case of reconciling themselves to accepting the best offer that is made over a reasonable period of time (six years and counting....).

It sounds clichéd, but it is nonetheless true that their shares are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them, and there is every chance that this will not match what they feel they are due. In the meantime, the club has a malaise that can only be depreciating it's value with each passing day.

Of course, it is their prerogative to hold out, but they also have a responsibility to both shareholders and supporters of the club. They are the current custodians, and also have to do the right thing by the club, no?

They should be able to give a figure though. It's always a hold back, thought, then a wee joke in the hope it's accepted. You do have to wonder though if the Craig, Corson, Todd and Earlie's of this world saw their money back.

[Tam M]

So the consortium are 'just looking for their money back'.

While I can understand that, is it realistic? Surely it should be a case of reconciling themselves to accepting the best offer that is made over a reasonable period of time (six years and counting....).

It sounds clichéd, but it is nonetheless true that their shares are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them, and there is every chance that this will not match what they feel they are due. In the meantime, the club has a malaise that can only be depreciating it's value with each passing day.

Of course, it is their prerogative to hold out, but they also have a responsibility to both shareholders and supporters of the club. They are the current custodians, and also have

to do the right thing by the

club, no?

I agree with this, they have technically made an investment and the value of that investment hasn't went up, its just went down over the years due to the economic challenges on a global scale and changes to the game in general. The value is only going to continue to decrease in my opinion.

Who wants to pay for a business that doesn't make any money?

[Bud the Baker]

So the consortium are 'just looking for their money back'.

While I can understand that, is it realistic? Surely it should be a case of reconciling themselves to accepting the best offer that is made over a reasonable period of time (six years and counting....).

It sounds clichéd, but it is nonetheless true that their shares are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them, and there is every chance that this will not match what they feel they are due. In the meantime, the club has a malaise that can only be depreciating it's value with each passing day.

Of course, it is their prerogative to hold out, but they also have a responsibility to both shareholders and supporters of the club. They are the current custodians, and also have to do the right thing by the club, no?

As I've said before I'm willing to contribute to a fan bid at £5 a share, limited to those owned prior to 2008, and with a deadline of the end of the current season.

[Stu]

Gordon Scott five years ago: "The more recent offer was made in February of this year when I offered to buy the consortium’s shares at a price which I believe would have matched the average price paid per share by the members of the consortium and would have allowed me to invest some money in the team."

http://www.blackandwhitearmy.com/news-archives/off-the-park-news/1402-statement-by-gordon-scott

Would have thought that would have given them their money back, unless there is more money on top of the share purchase they are still looking to get back.

And if we're going for early bird pricing for the Thistle game, should we not have announced that by now?

[nosferatu]

Maybe the BoD are quite happy running the club and think that, in the absence of them getting their cash back, that they are in the best position to run the club?

[Drew]

Maybe the BoD are quite happy running the club and think that, in the absence of them getting their cash back, that they are in the best position to run the club?

They have openly acknowledged that they need to move on and let someone with fresh impetus take the club forward. That was 6 years ago. I can't see many signs of them having been reinvigorated. Can you?

[Lord Pityme]

I agree there is no doubt they have to take responsibility for it. As there can be no doubt why ask the question in the first place (unless the only purpose is to draw attention (blame) to the fact.

The more pertinent question, what are we doing this time with regard to picking a manager, was asked (see BLF's post)

As there can be no doubt why ask your question in the first place? When the answer everyone knows is "the same duffers who couldnae pick their nose are having a stab at it again"

[Stuart Dickson]

It'll be interesting to see this no segregation experiment. I'd imagine it would have to be a cup tie.

[Bud the Baker]

Maybe the BoD are quite happy running the club and think that, in the absence of them getting their cash back, that they are in the best position to run the club?

So says the man who sold his shares last season............

A coupla questions I'd have liked to ask last night

• How many shares do Douglas Street own now (Number and as a % total)?
• Does Evelyn Purves still own shares in the club (She's not listed as one of the directors ofDouglas Street)?

Edited December 15, 2015 by Bud the Baker

[WeeBud]

As there can be no doubt why ask your question in the first place? When the answer everyone knows is "the same duffers who couldnae pick their nose are having a stab at it again"

That would be the answer if the question began with a "who", it began with a "what" old chap.........anyway, as always, it's back to semantics rather than substance.

[stripey]

If they're planning to put folk in the press room so they can watch the game then they'll need to knock through another wall so folk can see the game as there's no windows looking out onto the pitch along that side of the stand.

My understanding is that where the press are seated presently in the main stand, a platform holding 10 wheelchair is going to be built. There would be railings at the front, however these would be set at a height whereby all wheelchair users and their carers

would have full view of the pitch. The best way to describe it, is what's in place at Hearts at the moment. The platform would only be for home season ticket holders. Maybe in the future bus type shelters would be placed at the 2 corners of the ground for away disabled support.

[nosferatu]

They have openly acknowledged that they need to move on and let someone with fresh impetus take the club forward. That was 6 years ago. I can't see many signs of them having been reinvigorated. Can you?

None of that takes away from my point!

If no one is there with the cash or the fresh impetus then maybe they are okay continuing?

[norrie82]

I will not sitting with my own fans. Football is competitive it's about being in with your own and supporting your team. Are we going down the road now of being all friendly off the pitch now as well as on it. Caldwell painted the away dressing room black which was frankly an utter embarrassment and Has worked well hasn't it. Now when we could have had a Saturday cup tie at 3 pm v partick th we change it to a January night when it's possibly freezing and for what? It's absolutely bullocks and I can't work it out

[norrie82]

Also no Friday night games involving saints has drawn in any more fans so far. Attendance not any better last year as both partick games had 3,800 which I believe was lower than the Saturday game at St.mirren park. The difference is the BT deal was the reason this year the reason is what?

[Dibbles old paperboy]

Gordon Scott five years ago: "The more recent offer was made in February of this year when I offered to buy the consortium’s shares at a price which I believe would have matched the average price paid per share by the members of the consortium and would have allowed me to invest some money in the team."

http://www.blackandwhitearmy.com/news-archives/off-the-park-news/1402-statement-by-gordon-scott

Would have thought that would have given them their money back, unless there is more money on top of the share purchase they are still looking to get back.

And if we're going for early bird pricing for the Thistle game, should we not have announced that by now?

Maybe if he had a track record of funding the club while he was on the board the rest of the current board may have been happy to sell him their shares and watch him invest money in the team?

[buddiecat]

So says the man who sold his shares last season............

A coupla questions I'd have liked to ask last night

• How many shares do Douglas Street own now (Number and as a % total)?
• Does Evelyn Purves still own shares in the club (She's not listed as one of the directors ofDouglas Street)?

Douglas street directors - there have been 9 in total, now only 4 and Evelyn Purves was never listed as a director, must just have had an agreement with Douglas street to sell her shares, The 4 BOD members, Gilmour , Mcausland, Campbell and Marshall are shareholders of Douglas street along with Evelyn Purves, Janet Ann Marshall and Allan Mcausland and son ltd,

Douglas street owned around 51% of shares in 2014 and have been purchasing shares since then and along with those who they have an agreement they control 75% which was thought to make potential investors more interested in buying the club as this gives complete control to anyone who stumps up for the 75%

Edited December 15, 2015 by buddiecat

[saintnextlifetime]

They have openly acknowledged that they need to move on and let someone with fresh impetus take the club forward. That was 6 years ago. I can't see many signs of them having been reinvigorated. Can you?

Due to lack of proper investment, the value of their asset has now depreciated with us now rattling around at the wrong end of the Championship and let's be honest , there is every possibility that it could get worse before it gets better .. I'd have liked to have asked what there plans were for the empty managerial position, even though we all know that is only part of the problem . .

[KennyS]

Douglas street directors - there have been 9 in total, now only 4 and Evelyn Purves was never listed as a director, must just have had an agreement with Douglas street to sell her shares, The 4 BOD members, Gilmour , Mcausland, Campbell and Marshall are shareholders of Douglas street along with Evelyn Purves, Janet Ann Marshall and Allan Mcausland and son ltd,

Douglas street owned around 51% of shares in 2014 and have been purchasing shares since then and along with those who they have an agreement they control 75% which was thought to make potential investors more interested in buying the club as this gives complete control to anyone who stumps up for the 75%

Are you sure on this? I understood that at least one of the agreements taking them up to 75% had a time limit and had expired

[buddiecat]

Are you sure on this? I understood that at least one of the agreements taking them up to 75% had a time limit and had expired

They all have a time limit, i understand the 2 major ones' expire at the end of December 2016, i have no knowledge of the smaller agreements but assumed all would expire at the same date, otherwise why have the agreement to sell 75%