Jump to content

div

Smisa & Gordon Scott Submit Bid

Recommended Posts

As others said, the £12 is split... £10 towards the purchase of the shares, and the £2 to SMiSA for investment as decided by the membship.

If already paying £10 then I guess the options would be up it to £12... ... or £20 if feeling generous and wanting to continue investing at a higher level in SMiSA whilst buying the shares.

Not only half the asking price, but an additional 26% extra shares from Douglas Street (bought up last year to help to get to 75% with legal agreement from other large shareholders - KMcG & GLS).

In this deal as I have indicated before GLS has stated he does not want his current shareholding paid back by the St Mirren fans. In 10000Hours the agreement was for this to be returned at a later date IIRC.

The man has massive passion for taking the club forward. He says he is achieving an ambition of becoming chairman. He is sacrificing his previous financial investment (8%) and taking on the challenge of driving this club forward with additional financial risk.

Let's support this takeover. Try and get everyone you know to get on board to reach this goal as quickly as possible. Assuming everyone keeps the DD of £12 going after the loans have been paid off, then think what can be achieved for the club and the community moving forward.

Perhaps GLS & Fitzys dreams of European football, safe standing, filled in corners are closer to reality than we would have thought a few weeks ago.

To be fair there is no legal advantage to owning more than 50% plus 1 share unless you get to 75%plus one share so with SMISA starting on 29% they only need to actually buy 21% of GS meaning much more would be available direct to Club quicker (tax rules permitting) and the overall process would cost the fans less

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair there is no legal advantage to owning more than 50% plus 1 share unless you get to 75%plus one share so with SMISA starting on 29% they only need to actually buy 21% of GS meaning much more would be available direct to Club quicker (tax rules permitting) and the overall process would cost the fans less

I don't dispute that. However this deal is costing the fans a lot less than what was negotiated previously. The added bonus is that there are more shares on offer. It is also a simple to understand model of financing the repayments.

What's not to like about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair there is no legal advantage to owning more than 50% plus 1 share unless you get to 75%plus one share so with SMISA starting on 29% they only need to actually buy 21% of GS meaning much more would be available direct to Club quicker (tax rules permitting) and the overall process would cost the fans less

But the aim is to pass the 75% mark which will have massive advantages when it comes to fan ownership.

Start as you mean to go on with clearly expressed aims and targets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't dispute that. However this deal is costing the fans a lot less than what was negotiated previously. The added bonus is that there are more shares on offer. It is also a simple to understand model of financing the repayments.

What's not to like about that?

Nothing it's a great deal. Just commenting that unless the aim is to get to 75 plus 1 then there is not a lot of point of getting past 50 plus 1.

Personally 75 plus 1 should be the target and the agreement should definitely include the drag along clause to buy Gordon's shares when the cash is in hand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the aim is to pass the 75% mark which will have massive advantages when it comes to fan ownership.

Start as you mean to go on with clearly expressed aims and targets.

See post just made.

75 plus 1 is definitely what should be legally enabled over time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think i now get the chance to ask those pesky questions...maybe even create an alias to do so (maybe Steve McQueen or James Coburn would be suitable...keep old Yul company...who is still very much around BTW)

hopeful all being well i would be delighted to join up..if welcome

They let me join, and I'm just a HoF obsessed moaning-faced, ginger whinger keyboard warrior with soaked knickers due to the constant stream of urine in the gusset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing it's a great deal. Just commenting that unless the aim is to get to 75 plus 1 then there is not a lot of point of getting past 50 plus 1.

Personally 75 plus 1 should be the target and the agreement should definitely include the drag along clause to buy Gordon's shares when the cash is in hand

Buying 68% and adding tgat to GLS 8% and SMiSA's 3.4 % takes us over the 75%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stranger things have happened....not much stranger though.

Will be interesting to see what rate of interest the "ethical lenders" charge and what interest swaps they will negotiate.

Remember that in 10000hours if we delivered certain community benefits then the interest was not payable.

Still a good chance an individual may Bank roll instead.

So, the lender, in your view, has a good chance of being a St Mirren minded individual of an Ann Budge nature, and not an institutuonal lender?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying 68% and adding tgat to GLS 8% and SMiSA's 3.4 % takes us over the 75%

Indeed 75 % is the key and aim should be for SMISA to control through ownership it all in time so that any special resolutions can be controlled directly by the fans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the lender, in your view, has a good chance of being a St Mirren minded individual of an Ann Budge nature, and not an institutuonal lender?

Not in my read8ng of the proposal.

"Ethical lender" phrase is used which is an institutional term.

However it is not a lot of money to start with and there are ways of joining a few individuals together to create a type of lender which could be an approach so that rather than 1 Ann budge with 2m quid you need 8 saints with 50k each

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in my read8ng of the proposal.

"Ethical lender" phrase is used which is an institutional term.

However it is not a lot of money to start with and there are ways of joining a few individuals together to create a type of lender which could be an approach so that rather than 1 Ann budge with 2m quid you need 8 saints with 50k each

Are you in Richard????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not in my read8ng of the proposal.

"Ethical lender" phrase is used which is an institutional term.

However it is not a lot of money to start with and there are ways of joining a few individuals together to create a type of lender which could be an approach so that rather than 1 Ann budge with 2m quid you need 8 saints with 50k each

I didn't read it in the proposal either Richard, I was referring to the last line of your post, which lead me to believe you felt an Ann Budge-esque individual could be the lender....

"Still a good chance an individual may bankroll instead".

My follow up question naturally would have been, if such an individual existed and was willing to bankroll such a large figure, where have they been for the last six plus years.

Edited by pozbaird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read it in the proposal either Richard, I was referring to the last line of your post, which lead me to believe you felt an Ann Budge-esque individual could be the lender....

"Still a good chance an individual may bankroll instead".

My follow up question naturally would have been, if such an individual existed and was willing to bankroll such a large figure, where have they been for the last six plus years.

Indeed. But in a similar way Ann was only prepared to get involved when a suitable exit strategy provided by FoH was available...FoH came before Ann was willing or even approached to fund

So a bit chicken an egg if SMISA create the right structure who knows who may then appear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing it's a great deal. Just commenting that unless the aim is to get to 75 plus 1 then there is not a lot of point of getting past 50 plus 1.

Personally 75 plus 1 should be the target and the agreement should definitely include the drag along clause to buy Gordon's shares when the cash is in hand

What is on OFFER from the selling Consortium is 68% for a fixed price which is LESS than what was on offer a few years ago.. That 68% shareholding is non-negotiable.

Over a ten year period the aim is for the fans to purchase that 68%.

Pretty basic maths. Feck - even I understand that so I don't understand why you are getting fixated on 51%.

The way I see it is that a large group of fans are taking out a second mortgage for less than a pint a week to support a not for profit business & community venture for less that it would cost to buy a one bedroom flat in some parts of London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.smisa.net/join-the-trust

Join The Trust

Thank you for your interest in joining SMISA. New membership are currently suspended while we finalise the financial details of our joint offer with ex-SMFC director Gordon Scott for the majority shareholding in the club.

We will reopen memberships during our planned fundraising launch in April. If you would like to register your interest in joining, please send an email to [email protected] with your name and email address and we will contact you when we are ready to launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is on OFFER from the selling Consortium is 68% for a fixed price which is LESS than what was on offer a few years ago.. That 68% shareholding is non-negotiable.

Over a ten year period the aim is for the fans to purchase that 68%.

Pretty basic maths. Feck - even I understand that so I don't understand why you are getting fixated on 51%.

The way I see it is that a large group of fans are taking out a second mortgage for less than a pint a week to support a not for profit business & community venture for less that it would cost to buy a one bedroom flat in some parts of London.

Not fixated just pointing out that owning 68% grants very little more power than owning 50%.

In order to get to the next legal level of power within a company you need to own 75%.

Any lender will likley be concerned about how an owner can control 75% of the share capital certainly the lawyers will.

One of the reasons for success of FoH and hopefully the Well society is there ability to own 75% at least of the shares capital

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not fixated just pointing out that owning 68% grants very little more power than owning 50%.

In order to get to the next legal level of power within a company you need to own 75%.

Any lender will likley be concerned about how an owner can control 75% of the share capital certainly the lawyers will.

One of the reasons for success of FoH and hopefully the Well society is there ability to own 75% at least of the shares capital

There are a large group of minority shareholders like myself who I'm sure would be willing to "proxy" or gift those share to a shared co-operative FO vehicle to achieve over 75%.

Let's get the deal done to buy out the Douglas St consortium's 68% and pay off that first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds promising. Was unable to make it last night so look forward to seeing the details.

I thought the plan meant SMiSA wouldn't be taking out any loans as GLS would be putting in the whole amount and being paid back but I see there's mention of need for a £400k loan. Has the initial plan changed or was that always the intention?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds promising. Was unable to make it last night so look forward to seeing the details.

I thought the plan meant SMiSA wouldn't be taking out any loans as GLS would be putting in the whole amount and being paid back but I see there's mention of need for a £400k loan. Has the initial plan changed or was that always the intention?

I was wondering exactly the same thing ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not fixated just pointing out that owning 68% grants very little more power than owning 50%.

In order to get to the next legal level of power within a company you need to own 75%.

Any lender will likley be concerned about how an owner can control 75% of the share capital certainly the lawyers will.

One of the reasons for success of FoH and hopefully the Well society is there ability to own 75% at least of the shares capital

The way I read it was that over the 10 years SMISA would purchase the shares Gordon had purchased on day 1, to take SMISAs total shareholding to 68 (+3.4)%. Gordon would then gift his 8% to SMISA, without looking to regain his initial investment, taking SMISAs total shareholding to over 79%.

Share this post


Link to post
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...