Jump to content

div

Smisa & Gordon Scott Submit Bid

Recommended Posts

I might be wrong but I'm pretty sure in this deal that SMiSA and the fans DO NOT have to buy back GS exiting Shares (8%).

But that would not suit LordLookAtMe's agenda.

Can you tell me what my agenda is?

Dont you think perhaps there is more point in debating our thoughts, rather than posting sly comments designed to get saints fans fighting among themselves?

Given your comment above, tell us what is your agenda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me what my agenda is?

Dont you think perhaps there is more point in debating our thoughts, rather than posting sly comments designed to get saints fans fighting among themselves?

Given your comment above, tell us what is your agenda?

I don't have an agenda. I just deal with the facts. You have implied/stated that St Mirren fans are to pay back GS 8% current shareholding as part of this deal which is incorrect.

I'm willing to back this deal - are you? Simple Yes/No would suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an agenda. I just deal with the facts. You have implied/stated that St Mirren fans are to pay back GS 8% current shareholding as part of this deal which is incorrect.

I'm willing to back this deal - are you? Simple Yes/No would suffice.

Where did i say smisa members were going to payback 8% to Scott? Insaid they would be paying back the debt/monies he puts up.

I cast my vote in favour of the proposal, but hey dont let "facts" get in the way of the old pony you are trotting out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GLS is taking a big punt, but he will sell those shares he has been trying to punt and gets to sit on the throne for years with a token and lets face it, toothless, token fan representation on the board.

We will pay all the money for Gordon to do as he wishes, but atbleast the current incumbents will be gone and perhaps the club can move forward from their catastrophic failings?

That post implies that Saints fans will be repaying GS for all his shares which he has been trying to punt.

Apologies if that is not what you meant, but it reads that way. The Saints supporting journalist who was in attendance the other night made the same implication in his article.

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/14393242.Green_light_for_St_Mirren_takeover_bid/

"For the proposal to work, however, around 1000 supporters would need to commit £12 a month to pay off the initial loan required to buy the club from the selling consortium and then to eventually return Scott’s investment too."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you tell me what my agenda is?

Dont you think perhaps there is more point in debating our thoughts, rather than posting sly comments designed to get saints fans fighting among themselves?

Given your comment above, tell us what is your agenda?

Isn't that what your doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a point scoring debate going on anywhere. Two legitimate points have been made and they are worth consideration. The first addressed the expectation some will have of fan power and the possible threat to finance and the second rightly points out that fans are being asked to finance Gordon Scotts Chairmanship of the club. Both points are valid and it may make a difference to how some view the takeover.

For me personally I'm still in. SMISA always stated their aim was to purchase shares and to get fans represented in the boardroom. This is in line with their stated goals and the longer term objective is complete fan ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a point scoring debate going on anywhere. Two legitimate points have been made and they are worth consideration. The first addressed the expectation some will have of fan power and the possible threat to finance and the second rightly points out that fans are being asked to finance Gordon Scotts Chairmanship of the club. Both points are valid and it may make a difference to how some view the takeover.

For me personally I'm still in. SMISA always stated their aim was to purchase shares and to get fans represented in the boardroom. This is in line with their stated goals and the longer term objective is complete fan ownership.

Agree with this Stuart.

However I don't see any other way St Mirren fans can deliver Fan Ownership without the support of Gordon Scott. Not just financially, but someone who has inside knowledge on the inner workings of the club.

The fact that he is not asking us to repay his existing 8% shareholding demonstrates that he is leaving behind a very large investment. That demonstrates to me that the SMiSA team negotiated well with him, as I think this is a very important point.

Had the deal been to also repay Gordon Scott's 8% existing shareholding I would have had concerns about supporting such a bid.

Put it this way how can you hard bargain with Douglas St if you had someone on your side of the table going to benefit from the same financial agreement.

We won't have a better chance of gaining Fan Ownership.

The time is now.

Edited by Slash

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with this Stuart.

However I don't see any other way St Mirren fans can deliver Fan Ownership without the support of Gordon Scott. Not just financially, but someone who has inside knowledge on the inner workings of the club.

The fact that he is not asking us to repay his existing 8% shareholding demonstrates that he is leaving behind a very large investment. That demonstrates to me that the SMiSA team negotiated well with him, as I think this is a very important point.

Had the deal been to also repay Gordon Scott's 8% existing shareholding I would have had concerns about supporting such a bid.

Put it this way how can you hard bargain with Douglas St if you had someone on your side of the table going to benefit from the same financial agreement.

We won't have a better chance of gaining Fan Ownership.

The time is now.

I agree, obviously but if someone raises a concern it should be worth considering. Mr Optimistic raised a point yesterday about fickle people withdrawing their memberships and he was told that the point was to respect the majority decision but is it?

I know its going back over old ground but if we rewind the clock back to the Rangers liquidation a few years back would I have been prepared to continue to pay funds to an organisation if its leadership had behaved in the same way that Gilmour, Campbell, and McAusland did? Or in an organisation whose membership voted in the same way others in that boardroom did that day (even if it was to save the ticket lady's job? Would I hell! So perhaps there does need to be some contingency outlined for what would happen in the event that a decision is taken that proves so unpopular it damages membership numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see a point scoring debate going on anywhere.

I didn't explicitly state that there has been.

If the forum is true to form, however, we might anticipate that elements of this thread and related discussion elsewhere will be characterised by these types of exchanges. My point was that I intend (best laid plans, etc.) to steer clear on this occasion.

Simple, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, obviously but if someone raises a concern it should be worth considering. Mr Optimistic raised a point yesterday about fickle people withdrawing their memberships and he was told that the point was to respect the majority decision but is it?

I know its going back over old ground but if we rewind the clock back to the Rangers liquidation a few years back would I have been prepared to continue to pay funds to an organisation if its leadership had behaved in the same way that Gilmour, Campbell, and McAusland did? Or in an organisation whose membership voted in the same way others in that boardroom did that day (even if it was to save the ticket lady's job? Would I hell! So perhaps there does need to be some contingency outlined for what would happen in the event that a decision is taken that proves so unpopular it damages membership numbers.

The information supplied in the boardroom that day was tailored in my opinion to suit the agenda of Douglas St.

You would like to think that there would be transparency with a FO model on major issues like reconstruction, etc or else we might as well all FO now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The information supplied in the boardroom that day was tailored in my opinion to suit the agenda of Douglas St.

You would like to think that there would be transparency with a FO model on major issues like reconstruction, etc or else we might as well all FO now.

I'd cut the Board a wee bit of slack here

I am quite regularly in contact with a guy who , from a legal perspective, was quite involved in all the drama surrounding Rangers liquidation and all the shenanigans regarding which league they should play in (if at all) etc....

His take on things was that Doncaster and Co were absolutely playing the "doomsday" card with regards to cancellation of commercial contracts and sponsorships etc if one of the "Marquee" clubs was no longer involved.

Of course none of it came to fruition and incredibly Doncaster and cronies kept their positions despite the keech they were peddling but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, obviously but if someone raises a concern it should be worth considering. Mr Optimistic raised a point yesterday about fickle people withdrawing their memberships and he was told that the point was to respect the majority decision but is it?

I know its going back over old ground but if we rewind the clock back to the Rangers liquidation a few years back would I have been prepared to continue to pay funds to an organisation if its leadership had behaved in the same way that Gilmour, Campbell, and McAusland did? Or in an organisation whose membership voted in the same way others in that boardroom did that day (even if it was to save the ticket lady's job? Would I hell! So perhaps there does need to be some contingency outlined for what would happen in the event that a decision is taken that proves so unpopular it damages membership numbers.

Did you vote to hammer the bun in the boardroom that night? Tell me more....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd cut the Board a wee bit of slack here

I am quite regularly in contact with a guy who , from a legal perspective, was quite involved in all the drama surrounding Rangers liquidation and all the shenanigans regarding which league they should play in (if at all) etc....

His take on things was that Doncaster and Co were absolutely playing the "doomsday" card with regards to cancellation of commercial contracts and sponsorships etc if one of the "Marquee" clubs was no longer involved.

Of course none of it came to fruition and incredibly Doncaster and cronies kept their positions despite the keech they were peddling but hindsight is a wonderful thing.

How strange it is that Doncaster and Co are still earning mega wedge when the clubs could have done something about their position which most sane football fans felt was untenable. What a shambles the whole situation was and still is in many ways. We still allow the tail to wag the dog with the voting system.

The line being fed that night was that the club was only a few weeks from administration.

What a sorry state of affairs.

I'm not suggesting that FO will fix these problems when/if they occur again, but strength in numbers committing long term will ensure financial stability beyond 4 weeks I would hope over time a rainy day fund is created and ring-fenced in a interest bearing account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The information supplied in the boardroom that day was tailored in my opinion to suit the agenda of Douglas St.

You would like to think that there would be transparency with a FO model on major issues like reconstruction, etc or else we might as well all FO now.

I don't think it was about Douglas Street, Slash. If you think about it if it was all about getting a good price for the club then the most obvious solution would have been to boot Rangers out of the leagues and to then vote to exclude them from getting back in. That would have forced the likes of Charles Green to have gone for a more "Airdrie United" type solution of buying over another senior club.

That said - yeah I would hope that fan ownership would have made things different, but then that might depend on who is elected as fan representative and what powers the fans retain to call that person to task quickly if things start to go wrong.

Edited by Stuart Dickson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard a rumour today that you are going to prepare a special HoF board of the current BoD to hang in Stu Dickson's lounge......

Quite happy to cut a deal. I'll shut the fcuk up about the HoF panel if he shuts the fcuk up about his voting pattern that night. A win-win deal I'd say.

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...