Jump to content

£10 A Month To Fund New Players


Recommended Posts


I, and I Am sure, all saints fans share the OP's frustrations, and will to make something change for the better.

I believe Smisa provide the best long term option to save the club, and make no mistake it now needs "Saving". The revenue streams are drying up, people are voting with their feet, parachute payments will end, and if relegated the whole structure of the club (as is) would become completely unaffordable.

We are constantly told the club is "debt free"... Strange that a "debt free" club is continually paying back loans needed to pay the wages.

£245k in the last accounts, what will be needed, and will anyone provide it if we are relegated again?

Ironically with all the rain we have seen recently the message should have got through to us...."Join, increase, fund raise for Smisa.... It's time to build the Ark before all is swept away"

Who else will save our saints?

Why have SMISA teamed up with Gordon Scott in their bid to buy the club? He left the board after we moved into the new ground, and has failed in 1 bid to buy the club and has also been part of 10,000 Hours second bid (where he turned up at a public meeting and encouraged people to back the bid while admitting he didn't understand how the bid was being funded). Under 10,000Hours he was going to eventually get the money for his shares back, and last year he was letting Douglas Street add his shares to theirs to make 75% of the shares in the club available to new owners (and would have got his money back again) but we are being given the impression that GLS would invest more in the team than the current board but he has been part of 2 failed bids for the club and has been looking to get his own money back through 3 different bids including the SMISA bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have SMISA teamed up with Gordon Scott in their bid to buy the club? He left the board after we moved into the new ground, and has failed in 1 bid to buy the club and has also been part of 10,000 Hours second bid (where he turned up at a public meeting and encouraged people to back the bid while admitting he didn't understand how the bid was being funded). Under 10,000Hours he was going to eventually get the money for his shares back, and last year he was letting Douglas Street add his shares to theirs to make 75% of the shares in the club available to new owners (and would have got his money back again) but we are being given the impression that GLS would invest more in the team than the current board but he has been part of 2 failed bids for the club and has been looking to get his own money back through 3 different bids including the SMISA bid.

Surely that's obvious. SMiSA need an ally, preferably someone who has at least some access to cash if required. Whilst, from the other side, it seems the only way Gordon Scott can recover any of his investment in the club is to either sell his shareholding to Douglas Street to help them conclude a 75% share deal - or for him to become the owner of the 75% shareholding himself before then selling the shares back to the clubs supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have SMISA teamed up with Gordon Scott in their bid to buy the club? He left the board after we moved into the new ground, and has failed in 1 bid to buy the club and has also been part of 10,000 Hours second bid (where he turned up at a public meeting and encouraged people to back the bid while admitting he didn't understand how the bid was being funded). Under 10,000Hours he was going to eventually get the money for his shares back, and last year he was letting Douglas Street add his shares to theirs to make 75% of the shares in the club available to new owners (and would have got his money back again) but we are being given the impression that GLS would invest more in the team than the current board but he has been part of 2 failed bids for the club and has been looking to get his own money back through 3 different bids including the SMISA bid.

He wants to run the club for ten years then get his money back - if possible. He is very aware that it is not a given that he can get his money back but is willing to take on the task and get new funding in from businesses etc. He has ambitious plans for getting new interest in the club, and has faith and trust in the fans to help him achieve his aims and get us back on the way to being a consolidated top tier team.

It will be in his own interest to make a success of it, that is why i back his plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have SMISA teamed up with Gordon Scott in their bid to buy the club? He left the board after we moved into the new ground, and has failed in 1 bid to buy the club and has also been part of 10,000 Hours second bid (where he turned up at a public meeting and encouraged people to back the bid while admitting he didn't understand how the bid was being funded). Under 10,000Hours he was going to eventually get the money for his shares back, and last year he was letting Douglas Street add his shares to theirs to make 75% of the shares in the club available to new owners (and would have got his money back again) but we are being given the impression that GLS would invest more in the team than the current board but he has been part of 2 failed bids for the club and has been looking to get his own money back through 3 different bids including the SMISA bid.

Surely he was only lookng to get his money back in two of the three bids, the third was a six figure sum of his money for the consortium's shares and to invest in the club. Also, his shares and Ken's shares were part of the £1.5 m figure for the Argentinian group when we were in the Premiership so surely the 52% is worth under £1 million on it's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have SMISA teamed up with Gordon Scott in their bid to buy the club? He left the board after we moved into the new ground, and has failed in 1 bid to buy the club and has also been part of 10,000 Hours second bid (where he turned up at a public meeting and encouraged people to back the bid while admitting he didn't understand how the bid was being funded). Under 10,000Hours he was going to eventually get the money for his shares back, and last year he was letting Douglas Street add his shares to theirs to make 75% of the shares in the club available to new owners (and would have got his money back again) but we are being given the impression that GLS would invest more in the team than the current board but he has been part of 2 failed bids for the club and has been looking to get his own money back through 3 different bids including the SMISA bid.

Going by what you are saying, do you not think it's fair that he gets his money back - i say this because you mention it 3 times in one paragraph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely that's obvious. SMiSA need an ally, preferably someone who has at least some access to cash if required. Whilst, from the other side, it seems the only way Gordon Scott can recover any of his investment in the club is to either sell his shareholding to Douglas Street to help them conclude a 75% share deal - or for him to become the owner of the 75% shareholding himself before then selling the shares back to the clubs supporters.

spot on, there is also the fact he always was and is a saints fan and has the experience in the running of the club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

spot on, there is also the fact he always was and is a saints fan and has the experience in the running of the club

IMO now, I would say dont look a gift horse in the mouth.

GLS putting up the asking price, with an extended payback is the only dog fans have in the hunt for ownership, that said personally I would like to see Smisa fund raise like crazy so as to be able to take ownership of a large chunk of the shares if at the moment a deal with GLS ever comes to fruition.

That way fans would start with a significant shareholding in the club, whilst not taking unecessary debt burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GLS is as entitled as any other director to try and get his money for his shares back in the long run. I'm asking why he is seen as a better leader for the club than he current board when it has been suggested he was one of the directors who wouldn't put his hands in his pockets when the club had mid-season cash flow problems, and when he has been part of 2 or 3 failed bids already. He didn't offer enough for the club when he put his own bid in, and he has had access to enough money to buy the club then that was no longer the case and now he has the cash to make it happen again. As far as I can see he will try and get his money back if the SMISA bid comes off, and the same would have happened in joining the consortium for the 75% of the club going to the Argentinian or English bids last year and he was in line to get his money back under 10,000Hours mkII.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GLS is as entitled as any other director to try and get his money for his shares back in the long run. I'm asking why he is seen as a better leader for the club than he current board when it has been suggested he was one of the directors who wouldn't put his hands in his pockets when the club had mid-season cash flow problems, and when he has been part of 2 or 3 failed bids already. He didn't offer enough for the club when he put his own bid in, and he has had access to enough money to buy the club then that was no longer the case and now he has the cash to make it happen again. As far as I can see he will try and get his money back if the SMISA bid comes off, and the same would have happened in joining the consortium for the 75% of the club going to the Argentinian or English bids last year and he was in line to get his money back under 10,000Hours mkII.

Surely the simple answer is that he actively wants to get be involved. The current board wants out.

That's a hell of an improvement.

"Didn't offer enough" or wasn't willing to pay an over the odds price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely the simple answer is that he actively wants to get be involved. The current board wants out.

That's a hell of an improvement.

"Didn't offer enough" or wasn't willing to pay an over the odds price?

The latter being the case for all interested parties to date!

I was deply suspicious of GLS and his involvement with 10000 hours MK4 bid. However I now see GLS was at the time cut out of any other way to sell his shares, or have a meaningful input into the club.

Dont forget the consortium went back on their word when the froze out GLS and KMcG to form a 52% majority. The fact that the consortium had an agreement with GLS And KMcG to make 75% shareholding available to the english and argentinian bids only highlights what a baws of it the consortium made in putting the club up for sale, only to have to go back to the very people they froze out to enable the possibility of a sale, then to drop the english bid because they thought the argentinian bid would net them more, where they ballsed it up again and were left high and dry.

It mirrors the number, level and repetitive nature of the mistakes they have made with six different management departures/appointments.

Their mistakes and the teams poor form are the only consistency this club have achieved since it went up for sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latter being the case for all interested parties to date!

I was deply suspicious of GLS and his involvement with 10000 hours MK4 bid. However I now see GLS was at the time cut out of any other way to sell his shares, or have a meaningful input into the club.

Dont forget the consortium went back on their word when the froze out GLS and KMcG to form a 52% majority. The fact that the consortium had an agreement with GLS And KMcG to make 75% shareholding available to the english and argentinian bids only highlights what a baws of it the consortium made in putting the club up for sale, only to have to go back to the very people they froze out to enable the possibility of a sale, then to drop the english bid because they thought the argentinian bid would net them more, where they ballsed it up again and were left high and dry.

It mirrors the number, level and repetitive nature of the mistakes they have made with six different management departures/appointments.

Their mistakes and the teams poor form are the only consistency this club have achieved since it went up for sale.

its not the only consistency.

you spreading your usual diet of half truths, delusional nonsense and downright lies has also been a constant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GLS is as entitled as any other director to try and get his money for his shares back in the long run. I'm asking why he is seen as a better leader for the club than he current board when it has been suggested he was one of the directors who wouldn't put his hands in his pockets when the club had mid-season cash flow problems, and when he has been part of 2 or 3 failed bids already. He didn't offer enough for the club when he put his own bid in, and he has had access to enough money to buy the club then that was no longer the case and now he has the cash to make it happen again. As far as I can see he will try and get his money back if the SMISA bid comes off, and the same would have happened in joining the consortium for the 75% of the club going to the Argentinian or English bids last year and he was in line to get his money back under 10,000Hours mkII.

He's not though - and neither are the current board of directors. When you purchase shares in any business you know damned well that the value of shares may fall and that you may lose money. That's the nature of that kind of investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's not though - and neither are the current board of directors. When you purchase shares in any business you know damned well that the value of shares may fall and that you may lose money. That's the nature of that kind of investment.

Dibble is correct. He said GLS is as entitled as anyone to try and get his money back. Exactly as SG and the consortium were entitled to try and get two million or so. 'Try' being the important word here.

Isnae' happening. Unless one of us wins Euromillions and takes a mad turn. Mind you, if any of us did win Euromillions, fcuk paying two million. That was then, this is now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...