Jump to content

Buy The Buds


buddiecat

Recommended Posts


I would like to return to the question of the ownership of the company and club.

My understanding is that the desired outcome is that fans will own 52% of the club after buying out the new Chairman with 48% owned by others.

Ownership of 75.1% is needed, as I understand it, to have complete control.

This present is likely to severely restrain the ability of the fans group or nominees or equivalent in raising funds, issuing new shares etc.

Are there any plans in place to address this?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I questioned before why Gordon Scott wasn't putting up his previous 8 percent.  If I recall correctly, the fans will own 67 and would need his 8 to get the 75. This is not for sale however I believe.

 

6 hours ago, St.Ricky said:

I would like to return to the question of the ownership of the company and club.

My understanding is that the desired outcome is that fans will own 52% of the club after buying out the new Chairman with 48% owned by others.

Ownership of 75.1% is needed, as I understand it, to have complete control.

This present is likely to severely restrain the ability of the fans group or nominees or equivalent in raising funds, issuing new shares etc.

Are there any plans in place to address this?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote from "Buy the Buds" on the SMISA website:-

Why do we have to buy 68% of the club rather than just 50.1%?

When the majority shareholding in the club first went up for sale, it was a 52% stake, owned by five people. However one of the groups who came close to buying the club wanted to buy a 75% shareholding as this would give them unchecked power.

So the original consortium secured legal agreements with several others shareholders, including ex-directors Gordon Scott and Ken McGeoch plus four others with small shareholdings, which formed them into a block of just over 75%.

Those legal agreements remain in place, which means our offer has to include those other shareholders. Once you take away Gordon’s existing 8% shareholding, that leaves us with around 68% so that is the amount we were bound to offer for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, smcc said:

Quote from "Buy the Buds" on the SMISA website:-

Why do we have to buy 68% of the club rather than just 50.1%?

When the majority shareholding in the club first went up for sale, it was a 52% stake, owned by five people. However one of the groups who came close to buying the club wanted to buy a 75% shareholding as this would give them unchecked power.

So the original consortium secured legal agreements with several others shareholders, including ex-directors Gordon Scott and Ken McGeoch plus four others with small shareholdings, which formed them into a block of just over 75%.

Those legal agreements remain in place, which means our offer has to include those other shareholders. Once you take away Gordon’s existing 8% shareholding, that leaves us with around 68% so that is the amount we were bound to offer for.

Thank you. The net effect then is that Gordon Scott will own what will be a "Golden Share". Will this be acquired at any time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, St.Ricky said:

Thank you. The net effect then is that Gordon Scott will own what will be a "Golden Share". Will this be acquired at any time?

It will be up to the man himself to do what he wants with his shares (outside of the agreed amount to gain the majority shareholding) no point speculating until we buy the required amount, then we can look at the situation e.g. might be other things that have to be financed and are more important - just speculating though :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddiecat said:

It will be up to the man himself to do what he wants with his shares (outside of the agreed amount to gain the majority shareholding) no point speculating until we buy the required amount, then we can look at the situation e.g. might be other things that have to be financed and are more important - just speculating though :-)

Also factor in the other 25% are owned by long time St Mirren fans, so excluding Gordon's 8% the fans will own 92% of the club. Thats the Golden Share!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just heard our good old pal Chick on the radio basically blaming the board and the fans buy out for our current predicament.

He says that a fans buy out prevents a sugar daddy coming in and bailing the club out? WTF was Stewart Gilmour a sugar daddy?

Doesn't the daft Cnut realise that we were in this mess prior to the take over and the current manager was appointed by the previous regime? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, rabuddies said:

But he has a valid point in that without a major investor it will be very difficult to get the club much above mid-table. Sadly, our playing budget will be constrained by the other demands on the overall budget that others in the division don't have to bother about.

You may well be right but the fact is, for the entire duration of the club being available for purchase there were the grand total of f**k all Sugar Daddies queueing up to plough Millions into Saints.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kendo said:

Just heard our good old pal Chick on the radio basically blaming the board and the fans buy out for our current predicament.

He says that a fans buy out prevents a sugar daddy coming in and bailing the club out? WTF was Stewart Gilmour a sugar daddy?

Doesn't the daft Cnut realise that we were in this mess prior to the take over and the current manager was appointed by the previous regime? 

He told the departing BOD that Rae was the man to take us forward

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rabuddies said:

But he has a valid point in that without a major investor it will be very difficult to get the club much above mid-table. Sadly, our playing budget will be constrained by the other demands on the overall budget that others in the division don't have to bother about.

Tom Hendrie and Gus McPherson got us promoted as champions without a major investor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kendo said:

Tom Hendrie and Gus McPherson got us promoted as champions without a major investor.

True. But that was then and this is now. Of the last six clubs to be promoted to the top league, five had major investors and the other had a major cash injection to put their playing budgets beyond anything a fan owned club could aspire to unless they go down the route the Pars fans appear to be taking by supplementing it with monthly subs.  I would love it if we could beat the odds and put a team on the park that would be competitive, even at the current level, but sadly I can't see it happening any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rabuddies said:

True. But that was then and this is now. Of the last six clubs to be promoted to the top league, five had major investors and the other had a major cash injection to put their playing budgets beyond anything a fan owned club could aspire to unless they go down the route the Pars fans appear to be taking by supplementing it with monthly subs.  I would love it if we could beat the odds and put a team on the park that would be competitive, even at the current level, but sadly I can't see it happening any time soon.

Huh?

Unless I'm missing something the last six clubs to be promoted are "Rangers", Hearts, Dundee, Hamilton Accies, Partick Thistle, and Ross County. Hearts are a fan owned club. "Rangers" have wracked up a pile of debt when they didn't need to given their support numbers around 40,000 most weeks and I've no idea who you think was piling cash into Partick Thistle, Dundee or Hamilton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stuart Dickson said:

Huh?

Unless I'm missing something the last six clubs to be promoted are "Rangers", Hearts, Dundee, Hamilton Accies, Partick Thistle, and Ross County. Hearts are a fan owned club. "Rangers" have wracked up a pile of debt when they didn't need to given their support numbers around 40,000 most weeks and I've no idea who you think was piling cash into Partick Thistle, Dundee or Hamilton. 

In Dundee's winning season they received an injection of about £350K from "a group of shareholders" and also posted losses of just under £1M for the season. I wonder who underwrote that? The now have investment from an American source.

Thistle received around £1m from 2 directors and 2 wealthy supporters although I believe they had to give up control of land and property.  Since the the Weir's of lottery fame have donated £1.25M.

Accies receive cash from the company that owns 95% of the club. This club is owned by the Chairman, a Director (formerly BNP organiser for Glasgow and property developer) and the two children of the former owner.  This company also has the majority stake in the company that owns the stadium and only charges Accies £60K rent per annum.

Need I go on - these clubs didn't do it on the people paying their money on a Saturday.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rabuddies said:

In Dundee's winning season they received an injection of about £350K from "a group of shareholders" and also posted losses of just under £1M for the season. I wonder who underwrote that? The now have investment from an American source.

Thistle received around £1m from 2 directors and 2 wealthy supporters although I believe they had to give up control of land and property.  Since the the Weir's of lottery fame have donated £1.25M.

Accies receive cash from the company that owns 95% of the club. This club is owned by the Chairman, a Director (formerly BNP organiser for Glasgow and property developer) and the two children of the former owner.  This company also has the majority stake in the company that owns the stadium and only charges Accies £60K rent per annum.

Need I go on - these clubs didn't do it on the people paying their money on a Saturday.

 

I'll give you Partick Thistle even though it didn't take much searching on the internet to reveal that the Weirs £1.25m was donated to the Partick Youth Academy and not to the club itself. The other two though look like you've perhaps got a bit mixed up. 

First off Walter Hamilton, the guy who you refer to as the BNP guy, isn't a director of Hamilton Accies - he's just the stadium manager. He was a director of the club up till 2004. A check on the companies record shows that there are just 4 directors at Hamilton. Les Gray, Colin McGowan, Ronald McDonald and Allan Maitland. The story regarding Walter Hamilton that was published in the Herald claimed that Hamilton owned a 25% shareholding in a company that owned Hamilton Accies Stadium. I'm not sure where you get the information that money is being pumped into the club - it looks to me like Hamilton Accies are run pretty frugally and it's income from player sales and the compensation received for their manager that has boosted their income in recent years. If Accies are paying rent on their stadium surely that puts them at a disadvantage to a club like St Mirren who own their stadium and who don't pay rent to anyone? 

And at Dundee, are you sure this cash injection you talk about wasn't the money paid in by John Bennett which allowed the club to enter into a CVA so they could continue to trade after being in administration? And the £1m losses don't relate to the £1.2m that was spent by the club buying a plot of land on the Kingsway where the clubs Chairman and Managing Director are planning to build the club a new stadium? It's hard to imagine looking at any of their squads in recent years, that they was any cash being injected into the playing side of the club at all. 

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...