shull Posted February 20, 2016 Report Share Posted February 20, 2016 Apart from the bickering, is there actually any other news that relates to the sale of the club? There is no bloody bickering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted February 21, 2016 Report Share Posted February 21, 2016 That's the difference - I don't think it's bottomed out yet. Regardless of how St Mirren are playing and their progress in the league if the games biggest two clubs that carry the vast majority of Scottish Footballs paying customers are really in talks to leave the SPFL behind the club is going to struggle to find the finances to remain financially viable. The club hasn't managed to turn a significant profit in over 20 years despite a number of record breaking TV rights deals that have come about simply because of the significant worldwide fan base "Rangers" and Celtic have, then what chance does the club have of remaining financially viable if they've gone, the TV rights deals are worth a tiny fraction of what they are now, and St Mirren fans are committed to repaying a £1m debt to Gordon Scott? I think a more prudent action would be to sit tight, continue to collect member dues and let Douglas Street hold the financial risk. Be ready to step in and save a bankrupt club if the risk turns sour, or be better placed to play a bigger part in a subsequent offer to Douglas Street when the picture is less cloudy. The consortium tardiness in accepting the proposal may actually work in SMiSA's favour. Firstly - IF - and that is a big if in case you didn't notice, they are in talks, why is that not being shown on tv and why are the 2 clubs not actively promoting it ? Next, if the tv deals disappear, all clubs will be in the same boat, clubs without debt will be best placed to survive, if we leave it to fester away under the current regime and wait until a rescue package is needed then we would probably need to spend at least the same if not more to take control and clear debt. There is no great debt at the moment and we are financially sound, the current regime are doing a good job financially, the problem is that they do not have to continue to give soft loans to see us through mid season deficits, and by admitting they are tired and want out, they are sending a message that that situation may not be sustainable for them. We will not have to pay anything like £1m to buy out Gordon, and actually he is taking a risk that we will be able to buy him out at some stage, it is not a given that he would get all or any of his investment back at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 (edited) Why would the talks be shown on TV? The reports last week were that Harry van Raaij has been in closed door talks for months and that he has several major sponsors and a broadcaster all lined up. We know that there are current moves to make the Champions League more exclusive - a move likely to freeze all of the Scottish clubs out forever - so is it really all that unfathomable? It's already been reported that Peter Lawwell has already been in talks with other clubs like PSV and Ajax with a view to setting up a response to Karl-Heinz Rummenigges proposal. I can't see how the plans would protect SMiSA members in the event of a takeover. Even if Gordon Scott is left with the majority of the shares purchased SMiSA members would still have paid well over the odds for the shares they have bought. That seems like a folly to me. It would be better to wait to see what the outcome of the Atlantic League and Champions League proposals are and to pay the appropriate price when there is a bit of stability back in the game. Edited February 22, 2016 by Stuart Dickson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmac Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 I think what is maybe more pertinent now is whether the UK stays in europe or not. What could be the ramifications for say, Man City (and English fottball in general), if the UK leaves the EU and they cannot bring EU nationals in to play for them because of stricter immigration rules. Will Sky be happy with that, will they tear up their broadcasting contract - what would be the knock on effects on every other UK club? What will be will be, SMiSA need to get on with things in as much as they can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
religion is saints Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 As said many times talks are a total joke going nowhere from the orange juice brigade...if somebody else comes in and buys club where will SMISA go from here and what will they do with money already saved???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted February 22, 2016 Report Share Posted February 22, 2016 As said many times talks are a total joke going nowhere from the orange juice brigade...if somebody else comes in and buys club where will SMISA go from here and what will they do with money already saved???? What they've always done, support the club I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
religion is saints Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 What they've always done, support the club I suppose.in what way? Again I'll ask u where will they go from here and what will they do with money raised already? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 in what way? Again I'll ask u where will they go from here and what will they do with money raised already? What me personally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuddieinEK Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 What me personally Maybe he can't find a grown up to help him find all the info on the SMISA website! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
religion is saints Posted February 24, 2016 Report Share Posted February 24, 2016 The fact is the long term aim was to buy shares and own the club. If somebody else buys it what is the aim then and what do SMISA do with all savings they have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southside saint Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 The fact is the long term aim was to buy shares and own the club. If somebody else buys it what is the aim then and what do SMISA do with all savings they have? Wrong. The fact is that Smisa's aim at the outset was not to own the club. Circumstances have led to the current situation but that wasn't what they set out to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pod Posted February 26, 2016 Report Share Posted February 26, 2016 Wrong. The fact is that Smisa's aim at the outset was not to own the club. Circumstances have led to the current situation but that wasn't what they set out to do. Supporting them financially. Like supporters do, when they bother to turn up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
religion is saints Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Wrong. The fact is that Smisa's aim at the outset was not to own the club. Circumstances have led to the current situation but that wasn't what they set out to do.no circumstances have lead to this, had no need to make a bid...club was not in any financial trouble or anything else... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Dickson Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Supporting them financially. Like supporters do, when they bother to turn up. That wasn't the aim either. As with all ISAs it was to buy up shares with the aim of getting fans a say in the boardroom in the running of their club. It was the only reason I joined in the first place and when they lost sight of that goal and started buying towels and tshirts that's when I chucked it. I'm supportive of fan/community ownership of our senior football clubs. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in becoming part of a cash cow for failing directors to use to cover their deficiency Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 no circumstances have lead to this, had no need to make a bid...club was not in any financial trouble or anything else... Your comments strike me as coming from someone who has no clue what goes on at SMFC. I also notice a lot of your post match comments are almost word for word what someone else has written, either in here or in papers and even comments from the telly. Anyone with any knowledge of SMFC will know that the club is for sale, that is why fans are making a bid, to try preventing another group of businessmen from taking control. We are controlled by a consortium of businessmen at the moment and with half their mind on Saints and the other half on their business interests, then yes they are the best people to be in charge at the moment. But If they sell to fans then SMFC will no longer be subject to decisions made by people who have to think of their own interests as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 That wasn't the aim either. As with all ISAs it was to buy up shares with the aim of getting fans a say in the boardroom in the running of their club. It was the only reason I joined in the first place and when they lost sight of that goal and started buying towels and tshirts that's when I chucked it. I'm supportive of fan/community ownership of our senior football clubs. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in becoming part of a cash cow for failing directors to use to cover their deficiency Unfortunately the option to buy un-issued shares was no longer being allowed by the board, and SMiSA bought up as many fans shares that were offered for sale to them, that has now stopped also, because the focus is on buying the only other option which is the shares of Douglas street ltd., I do now feel that Douglas street ltd., may wish to stay in control (unless they get silly money from elsewhere) and that SMiSA will be subject to similar rejection to that given to 10k hours i.e. reasons will be given for rejection, and they may or may not be valid reasons. The land being put up for sale does not seem to be a decision by owners who want out in the near future, because that land will not sell very quickly in my opinion, could be wrong but that is my main reason for thinking Douglas street want to stay put now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Pityme Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 Unfortunately the option to buy un-issued shares was no longer being allowed by the board, and SMiSA bought up as many fans shares that were offered for sale to them, that has now stopped also, because the focus is on buying the only other option which is the shares of Douglas street ltd., I do now feel that Douglas street ltd., may wish to stay in control (unless they get silly money from elsewhere) and that SMiSA will be subject to similar rejection to that given to 10k hours i.e. reasons will be given for rejection, and they may or may not be valid reasons. The land being put up for sale does not seem to be a decision by owners who want out in the near future, because that land will not sell very quickly in my opinion, could be wrong but that is my main reason for thinking Douglas street want to stay put now. With the land up for sale the cost of buying the majority shareholding should be lowered accordingly. The land in reality is the only sellable asset on the clubs books. Unless the proceeds are invested in upgrading the stadium, or investing in the playing staff budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted February 27, 2016 Report Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) With the land up for sale the cost of buying the majority shareholding should be lowered accordingly. The land in reality is the only sellable asset on the clubs books. Unless the proceeds are invested in upgrading the stadium, or investing in the playing staff budget. Good points LPM. The land for sale situation means that the financial report commissioned by SMiSA will be null and void and a new report and cost thereof will have to be met by SMiSA if the land does get sold before any agreement is reached. SMiSA have to accept the goalposts have been changed and members have to consider if we throw more money at it or not, a new financial report would be required - unless the land does not get sold before any agreement is reached. This is why i reckon there will be no sale to SMiSA, reason being - why give your consortium the additional headache of selling land (which given the time taken for potential buyers to get planning consent, searches done etc., will possibly take a year or so) if you thought you would not be concerned about this in the coming year ? You will have to devote time and club money to this project until a sale goes through. There will already have been costs incurred in the appointment of Ryder property to sell the land and in my opinion that is money that could have been used to improve the playing staff rather than try to sell a plot of land which is on the Ryder website as "land for residential purposes" There are already quite a few residential developments in the area which have been suspended due to lack of property sales and or interest. I have to stress this my own reading of the situation as i am no way involved in the negotiations of the proposal (due to the confidential nature of proceedings and my opinion that every SMFC fan should be kept up to date on every single step of the negotiations) but i am led to believe that cannot be possible when you deal with a business consortium. I would also add, i am not a lawyer nor am i a land sale expert. It is simply my take on what is happening. Edited February 28, 2016 by buddiecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
religion is saints Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Your comments strike me as coming from someone who has no clue what goes on at SMFC. I also notice a lot of your post match comments are almost word for word what someone else has written, either in here or in papers and even comments from the telly. Anyone with any knowledge of SMFC will know that the club is for sale, that is why fans are making a bid, to try preventing another group of businessmen from taking control. We are controlled by a consortium of businessmen at the moment and with half their mind on Saints and the other half on their business interests, then yes they are the best people to be in charge at the moment. But If they sell to fans then SMFC will no longer be subject to decisions made by people who have to think of their own interests as well. why would u try to stop somebody else buying the club when supposedly SMISA remit was never to own club? Why if somebody could offer far more in finance would u try to stop them buying it? This is a total ego thing from SMISA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Good points LPM. The land for sale situation means that the financial report commissioned by SMiSA will be null and void and a new report and cost thereof will have to be met by SMiSA if the land does get sold before any agreement is reached. SMiSA have to accept the goalposts have been changed and members have to consider if we throw more money at it or not, a new financial report would be required - unless the land does not get sold before any agreement is reached. This is why i reckon there will be no sale to SMiSA, reason being - why give your consortium the additional headache of selling land (which given the time taken for potential buyers to get planning consent, searches done etc., will possibly take a year or so) if you thought you would not be concerned about this in the coming year ? You will have to devote time and club money to this project until a sale goes through. There will already have been costs incurred in the appointment of Ryder property to sell the land and in my opinion that is money that could have been used to improve the playing staff rather than try to sell a plot of land which is on the Ryder website as "land for residential purposes" There are already quite a few residential developments in the area which have been suspended due to lack of property sales and or interest. I have to stress this my own reading of the situation as i am no way involved in the negotiations of the proposal (due to the confidential nature of proceedings and my opinion that every SMFC fan should be kept up to date on every single step of the negotiations) but i am led to believe that cannot be possible when you deal with a business consortium. I would also add, i am not a lawyer nor am i a land sale expert. It is simply my take on what is happening. Strange, I know i edited this post this morning to remove grammatical errors,now when i check it again the edit has been removed, is somebody spying ? i have corrected the errors again just so you know. ETA quite good information if anyone is ever subject to legal proceedings for having posted something on here, your post could have been edited or had your own edit removed, this could of course be a problem with your PC or device. Edited February 28, 2016 by buddiecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
div Posted February 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Strange, I know i edited this post this morning to remove grammatical errors,now when i check it again the edit has been removed, is somebody spying ? i have corrected the errors again just so you know. ETA quite good information if anyone is ever subject to legal proceedings for having posted something on here, your post could have been edited or had your own edit removed, this could of course be a problem with your PC or device. Or maybe you just forgot to save your edited post? Nobody edits posts here without the "edited by...." tag being appended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Or maybe you just forgot to save your edited post? Nobody edits posts here without the "edited by...." tag being appended. Right, so could anyone have hacked in and done it or is it just yourself who can access posts. Must be losing my marbles i'm sure i edited that post to clear errors and sure i saw the edit tag after i done it.EDIT TEST Edited February 28, 2016 by davidg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oaksoft Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Right, so could anyone have hacked in and done it or is it just yourself who can access posts. Must be losing my marbles i'm sure i edited that post to clear errors and sure i saw the edit tag after i done it. Occams razor bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buddiecat Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 Occams razor bud. Nah i'm only nearly 60, few months to go yet. So i will take the complicated explanation rather than me losing marbles. Although i did put orange juice in my coffee instead of milk last week, but i'm putting that down to them both being in similar containers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted February 28, 2016 Report Share Posted February 28, 2016 (edited) Right, so could anyone have hacked in and done it or is it just yourself who can access posts. Must be losing my marbles i'm sure i edited that post to clear errors and sure i saw the edit tag after i done it.I can edit your posts also, but it would automatically say it's been edited by davidg and I couldn't remove this. No way of me (or you) editing without the edit by text at the bottom.Edited both posts to double check. No way of removing it. Edited February 28, 2016 by davidg 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.