Jump to content

Buy The Buds


buddiecat

Recommended Posts

I liked most of Div's post... probably the most persuasive post I've read. As far as naming board members goes, while we may have no details from other potential buyers about who would be on their board if they takeover, none of them are asking us to fund their takeovers. At the moment we have a fan ownership takeover bid where the fans buying the club and signing up to 120 direct debits are not being told how many other people will be on the board besides the 1 rep they can vote for, and we're not being told if any of the current directors will stay on in the new board. Why do these potentially matter? We are being told the current board want out and have no more energy and no new ideas to carry the club forward and the SMISA / GLS bid will bring in fresh faces and new energy and a new approach and new ideas... so can we take it as read that all the old tired, unenthusiastic board are all going? Are any staying... in which case how many and how much energy and new ideas have they suddenly found.

1 fans rep on a small board is decent, especially if SMISA will hold 30% (?) of the shares. If we have a larger board and only 1 fans rep but a sizeable % of the shareholding then I think we should be asking for a proportionate number of board members.

Gordon stated at one of the meetings that he would like to keep Ian Henderson and he will invite others on to the board who he feels are capable of helping him take the club forward , I would imagine that would be another two along with the fans representative .. maybe he has an idea of who he would like on his board but doesn't want to say until the deal goes through or maybe those people don't want to be named ... Edited by gazmc83
Link to comment
Share on other sites


A post on the "St Mirren Supporters" Facebook page from a member of the St Mirren Fans Council.

"Heard a rumour that Ken McGeoch will be on the board if the SMISA bid is successful"

Any truth to these "rumours"?

There's your first problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't quote Div, but yes, his post was very considered, measured, and helpful.

As Poz has suggested, though, we shouldn't be relying on Div - or anyone else on here - to address the concerns and answer questions. There is certainly no harm in it, none whatsoever, but it would be helpful to have a Q&A facility somewhere (here, or SMiSA website?) so we could hear directly from those involved.

Gordon isn't a polished public speaker. Fine, neither am I. Few of us are, and that suits me just fine. A Q&A section somewhere doesn't require the same degree of thinking on your feet as an open public meeting does. It affords the opportunity to consider an appropriate response, consult with relevant others as required, and follow up on issues where necessary.

Gordon has done this before. Granted, it was short lived, but the spirit behind it was sound. We don't need chapter and verse, or disclosure of potentially commercially sensitive or confidential information, just a reliable, accessible conduit.

Just my tuppence worth.

Edited by Drew
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't quote Div, but yes, his post was very considered, measured, and helpful.

As Poz has suggested, though, we shouldn't be relying on Div - or anyone else on here - to address the concerns and answer questions. There is certainly no harm in it, none whatsoever, but it would be helpful to have a Q&A facility somewhere (here, or SMiSA website?) so we could hear directly from those involved.

Gordon isn't a polished public speaker. Fine, neither am I. Few of us are, and that suits me just fine. A Q&A section somewhere doesn't require the same degree of thinking on your feet as an open public meeting does. It affords the opportunity to consider an appropriate response, consult with relevant others as required, and follow up on issues where necessary.

Gordon has done this before. Granted, it was short lived, but the spirit behind it was sound. We don't need chapter and verse, or disclosure of potentially commercially sensitive or confidential information, just a reliable, accessible conduit.

Just my tuppence worth.

Well said hairy arse. ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't ETA the above post as its already long enough.

I texted a mate yesterday asking him if he has signed up. He hasn't, as yet, but will be considering it. This guy has nothing but the interests of the club at heart. He has taken his son and daughter to games, and now takes his grandson along - the lad is Saints daft (well, you'd need to be daft!).

I would like to be in a position to point this mate - and others (I do have more than one, before faraway interjects. Two to be precise, though one is paid for his trouble) - to a facility whereby he could address any specific points/queries/concerns he has. A chat forum like this is fine, but the net is designed for organisations to interact with customers etc, so why not utilise it to the full?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome 694, I also had back problems last year, obviously i don't know what your particular back problem is, but Paisley physiotherapy centre fixed my back in 5 visits, i would recommend them to anyone.

Prolapsed S1 disc.

I was attending Andy Binning at tail end of last year. It was way beyond simple physiotherapy unfortunately. It finally went for a second time after the Rangers match. I could barely stand to celebrate by the time we equalised.

Luckily I have private healthcare provided by my employer. So the process of MRI to diagnosis to Op happened within 4 weeks.

10 weeks off work and Euros are on...Happy coincidence.

Anyway the only way is up,personally and for the buds!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another quite long post….

AnyBuddie that signs up for this club buy-out is simply stupid and naive.

It’s like asking people to mend a tiny leak in the bottom of a dinghy just as a Tsunami is about to hit. Worse – water is already swilling round the necks of every club in Scottish football. The waters of corruption, that is. And the corruption is always ignored by the complicit media, always has been.

The Bigot brothers conspired a few years ago to ensure they didn’t share their home gates and, since then, Scottish Football has been played upon a steadily more uneven, distorted and biased playing field. The wee diddy clubs just don’t stand a chance. I can see no future possibility in clubs other than the Bigots, succeeding with their tainted funding… and the connivance of the media.

As the gap between the Bigots and the diddy clubs grew, everyBuddie bitched about it but our various club owners have always been complicit, knowing what was happening, always ready to snatch crumbs from the Bigot table… all the while scrambling to keep up by throwing unsustainable dosh at fancy players, money that the diddy fan population just could not sustain. No wonder there have been so many financial calamities and bail-outs. shull has always had a valid point. Sigh.

The corruption continues with regard to the disgusting ongoing Sevco farce. The SFA and its officers are appointed by ALL the clubs, yet the infamous five-way agreement to fabricate an entirely new club in the bottom league was allowed to be pushed through – despite the angry misgivings of a very few honest men such as Turnbull Hutton.

(As an aside, it has been hugely impressive how Agents Regan and Doncaster have so comprehensively emasculated and shafted Scottish Football governance and, as by-product, have overseen years of the Scottish national team bouncing along the bottom… In due course, doubtless they’ll be rewarded by the Palace. I’m amazed the Nationalists haven’t seen through THAT one…)

How can it be that two Directors (one a convicted criminal)... from the days in which Rangers went into liquidation, owing millions to creditors and society... could now be heavily involved in shiny, new look-alike companies - Rangers International FC and The Rangers - aka Sevco… and be allowed to continue to exploit the unbelievably trusting fans.

And the Scottish Mainstream Sporting Media never ask questions, never challenge the corruption, won’t even discuss the FACT that it is an entirely new club with dubious origins - but claiming to be the same extinct club! Just not keen on claiming its debts...

(As another aside, when div posted on here that he thought the whole sevco name thing was tedious – that was when I no longer wanted to participate in THIS Media outlet. It’s his baw, his game and I respect what he has provided.)

Now, I don’t care about those Sevco fans.

I do care about Buddies. Why throw money at the leaking dinghy in the Tsunami?

Aye, I understand why it would be better to have some form of fan ownership. I appreciate GLS putting his head above the parapet and am minded to believe he is genuinely one of us. Listening to Alex Rae (despite his fitba affiliations), he has convinced me that he shares a genuine, honest passion for fitba that just might be able to thrive – even in the corrupt cesspool of Scottish fitba.

Maybe, just maybe, honesty and transparency will someday (soon) afflict the Scottish game. And, out of love for many Buddies, I want our Town and its team to be at the forefront.

So that’s why I HAVE bought in to SMISA’s initiative.

Call me stupid, call me naïve…

Join me.

Go on. It's a heart thing. You know it makes no sense. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't ETA the above post as its already long enough.

I texted a mate yesterday asking him if he has signed up. He hasn't, as yet, but will be considering it. This guy has nothing but the interests of the club at heart. He has taken his son and daughter to games, and now takes his grandson along - the lad is Saints daft (well, you'd need to be daft!).

I would like to be in a position to point this mate - and others (I do have more than one, before faraway interjects. Two to be precise, though one is paid for his trouble) - to a facility whereby he could address any specific points/queries/concerns he has. A chat forum like this is fine, but the net is designed for organisations to interact with customers etc, so why not utilise it to the full?

Next payment is due in my bank, please make it in euros, I'm skint. ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only bit of Div's post I'd take issue with is the claim that the clubs "marvellous community work" doesn't generate any revenue. Really? A five figure grant from the SFP, a five figure payment from the local council to rename the stadium and five figure grants from the SFA and from their sponsorship partners paid up front to run each one of these programmes - I'd say that's generating revenue.

St Mirren are hardly a benevolent supplier of these programmes. Gilmour said as much at the meeting in 2012 that we were in attendance at when he talked about how any redundancies during this "Armageddon" period the club had entered, might not be the obvious ones due to some posts being self funded.

I don't think we pursue initiatives like Street Stuff and Midnight Football to make money. They may well be funded by grants or whatever but I can't imagine we make a profit on them. There is so much stuff going on at St.Mirren over and above the first team and youth setup. I don't think the club gets the credit it deserves sometimes for what goes on.

I also don't think you could really call the stadium sponsorship deal with the council anything other than a commercial business contract. The council perhaps got a more favourable deal than a blue chip would get but it's still a six figure sponsorship package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another quite long post….

AnyBuddie that signs up for this club buy-out is simply stupid and naive.

It’s like asking people to mend a tiny leak in the bottom of a dinghy just as a Tsunami is about to hit. Worse – water is already swilling round the necks of every club in Scottish football. The waters of corruption, that is. And the corruption is always ignored by the complicit media, always has been.

The Bigot brothers conspired a few years ago to ensure they didn’t share their home gates and, since then, Scottish Football has been played upon a steadily more uneven, distorted and biased playing field. The wee diddy clubs just don’t stand a chance. I can see no future possibility in clubs other than the Bigots, succeeding with their tainted funding… and the connivance of the media.

As the gap between the Bigots and the diddy clubs grew, everyBuddie bitched about it but our various club owners have always been complicit, knowing what was happening, always ready to snatch crumbs from the Bigot table… all the while scrambling to keep up by throwing unsustainable dosh at fancy players, money that the diddy fan population just could not sustain. No wonder there have been so many financial calamities and bail-outs. shull has always had a valid point. Sigh.

The corruption continues with regard to the disgusting ongoing Sevco farce. The SFA and its officers are appointed by ALL the clubs, yet the infamous five-way agreement to fabricate an entirely new club in the bottom league was allowed to be pushed through – despite the angry misgivings of a very few honest men such as Turnbull Hutton.

(As an aside, it has been hugely impressive how Agents Regan and Doncaster have so comprehensively emasculated and shafted Scottish Football governance and, as by-product, have overseen years of the Scottish national team bouncing along the bottom… In due course, doubtless they’ll be rewarded by the Palace. I’m amazed the Nationalists haven’t seen through THAT one…)

How can it be that two Directors (one a convicted criminal)... from the days in which Rangers went into liquidation, owing millions to creditors and society... could now be heavily involved in shiny, new look-alike companies - Rangers International FC and The Rangers - aka Sevco… and be allowed to continue to exploit the unbelievably trusting fans.

And the Scottish Mainstream Sporting Media never ask questions, never challenge the corruption, won’t even discuss the FACT that it is an entirely new club with dubious origins - but claiming to be the same extinct club! Just not keen on claiming its debts...

(As another aside, when div posted on here that he thought the whole sevco name thing was tedious – that was when I no longer wanted to participate in THIS Media outlet. It’s his baw, his game and I respect what he has provided.)

Now, I don’t care about those Sevco fans.

I do care about Buddies. Why throw money at the leaking dinghy in the Tsunami?

Aye, I understand why it would be better to have some form of fan ownership. I appreciate GLS putting his head above the parapet and am minded to believe he is genuinely one of us. Listening to Alex Rae (despite his fitba affiliations), he has convinced me that he shares a genuine, honest passion for fitba that just might be able to thrive – even in the corrupt cesspool of Scottish fitba.

Maybe, just maybe, honesty and transparency will someday (soon) afflict the Scottish game. And, out of love for many Buddies, I want our Town and its team to be at the forefront.

So that’s why I HAVE bought in to SMISA’s initiative.

Call me stupid, call me naïve…

Join me.

Go on. It's a heart thing. You know it makes no sense. :)

Airdrie , Motherwell , Dundee , Hearts, Livingston or do these clubs not count. I get the old firm hatred however when they carry the biggest supports they will always get the nodding dugs from the powers to be. Let's not get away from facts many clubs spent what they don't have one reason for us being held back as we learnt out spending lesson early thankfully. I don't give a toss about any other club have signed up to buythebuds because it's St Mirren my team. Not to sign up simply because of the old firm , really, let them win again. No thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very long post alert. Go and get the kettle on.

I've spoken to a couple of lads who haven't signed up yet and won't sign up "unless we're needed". The crux of that being that they are quite happy for the fans to own the club, they don't have a massive issue with SMiSA or GLS, but they really don't want to personally have any involvement in the whole thing and they'd much rather keep the £1,440 in their pocket for the next ten years and let everyone else pay for it.

Both said if push comes to shove nearer the deadline they will commit and help get it over the line. I guss they can't be alone in that school of thought.

The financial commitment is really the only argument that I've seen that I can understand.

Here's a few of the points I've seen raised against it;

There's no obvious business plan

The business plan of the football club currently is that we spend what we bring in. We aim to break even.

I think it's fair to say we're a bit lazy commercially. We do hospitality, we do dinners, we sell advertising boards, we kind of run a club shop. We sell season tickets. We get someone to sell pies and we have someone who sells strips. Aside from all the marvellous community work that doesn't generate us any direct revenue that, along with ticket sales on the day and gate receipts is where we get our income.

None of that is going to change for the worse. It's all the lowest hanging fruit there is for a football club to aim for. With new ideas and energy it absolutely stands to reason that we *might* increase our revenue. It's impossible for me to imagine how we could manage to reduce it other than by being relegated again and that's hopefully unlikely now that we have a manager that knows what he's doing.

The hope is that the academy produces a gem or two, and we get proper value for them. That's hard in the Championship but as Falkirk have proven, it can still be done. McLean and McGinn were stars, Mallan & Naismith are two more with heaps of potential. Morgan could make it. The academy IS working.

Nobody knows who will be on the initial board apart from GLS, Tony Fitzpatrick & a SMiSA member

That's three more people than you will know from any other prospective buyer and all of whom are died in the wool St.Mirren fans. Gordon will want to surround himself with like minded local business people. He's putting in £600K of his own money here remember, he doesn't want this to fail!!

I don't like SMiSA

Some people don't like SMiSA or individuals within SMiSA. That's life. Supporters groups will always have different opinions. The only thing that we all have in common is that we are all St.Mirren fans. In my opinion you need to look past the individual personalities and to the bigger picture here.

The fans don't know how to run a club

The club has been run by St.MIrren fans for the past 25 years or more, we haven't fared too badly in that time. We've been to two major finals, we've won one of them, we've been promoted twice as champions, we've re-developed one stadium, we've built a brand new stadium, we've had 7 years of top flight football and we've built a training academy that is the envy of many clubs of our size. If the guys on the board had done a shit job in the past you would have been powerless to do anything about it. In the future you will have the opportunity to campaign for under performing board members to bugger off.

The numbers don't add up

1000 fans paying £12 a month is £144,000 per annum.

£120,000 of that will go towards loan repayments.

£24,000 of that will be banked and can be used to benefit the football club.

That's £24K a year into the club that isn't currently going in. That's brand new money.

Within just over 3 years the loan element is paid back. Within another 7 years Gordon is paid back.

Imaging in 10 years time that there are 1500 members in the organisation, we've paid back all the money, and the fans vote to continue to pay £10 a month into a slush fund. That would potentially be £180K a year that we could spend on the club. All new money. All benefitting OUR club.

In addition to all of that there are the fans paying £25 a month, and the £50K contingency money from the £2.5K packages. All that reserve will be there for the rainy days when there are cashflow bumps in the road.

Fans will get bored and cancel their direct debits

As I've said above the loan element of the project could easily be paid off inside the next 3 years. The loan element of the project is the only aspect that puts the club at any risk. Why would the fans willingly want to jeapordise the future of the club by deserting en masse within the next 3 years? And if they did, do you think Gordon would sit back and watch his £600K personal investment go down the pan??

10 years IS a long time though, it is a long commitment. So say in years 6 or 7 there is a big tail off for whatever reason. Where are we then? Well the loan is paid off but we don't have enough to pay Gordon back. And so what? We are back to EXACTLY the position we are in right now where Gordon would be able to sell the majority shareholding on the open market. That's it, that's all that could really happen.

Gordon is going to be a friendly lender in any case. If SMiSA said we needed another year or so is he really going to stick two fingers up and tell them where to go? It's taken SG and co 7 YEARS to sell the club, who knows what the landscape will be like in 2026!

In Summary

Sorry for going on a bit but the risk here, in my opinion, really is pretty small. You don't need to see detailed business plans here to back this, it's almost a no brainer aside from the financial comittment. At £3 a week I'm happy to forego a pint or a pie (sorry Rosalind!) a week to fund the future of our club.

All right, but apart from the two major finals; promotion twice; re-developed stadium; built new stadium; 7 years of top flight football; and new training academy, what have the Board ever done for us?whistling.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think we pursue initiatives like Street Stuff and Midnight Football to make money. They may well be funded by grants or whatever but I can't imagine we make a profit on them. There is so much stuff going on at St.Mirren over and above the first team and youth setup. I don't think the club gets the credit it deserves sometimes for what goes on.

I also don't think you could really call the stadium sponsorship deal with the council anything other than a commercial business contract. The council perhaps got a more favourable deal than a blue chip would get but it's still a six figure sponsorship package.

Div...If someone employed to deliver those programmes, funded by the grants does one task outside of those programmes there is your profit.

The club has been attempting to flog naming rights to the stadium for longer than the directors have been trying to offload their shares. There clearly wasn't any company blue chip or otherwise that agreed with the valuation the club had. The council have used quite a lot of public money to call it the Paisley 2021 Stadium, they've specifically done so because the stadium is situated with the community. Whether it's value for money is for the electorate to decide.

St Mirren have become quite efficient at applying for and getting grants. The club delivers programmes reasonably well, but the club has never taken those initial grants and made a programme self financing beyond the grant period. I don't think that's good value for the community especially when St Mirren have been awarded the grants ahead of local groups who could deliver the programmes and who would have made it self financing. IMO those wee stars the SFA keeps awarding it's clubs as a form of self congratulation rather than achievement is all the praise St Mirren look for. I think there is plenty of scope to raise the game, increase footfall and drive for a self sufficiency that will increase revenue further still. I hope the guys at SMiSA see that and will deliver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Div...If someone employed to deliver those programmes, funded by the grants does one task outside of those programmes there is your profit.

The club has been attempting to flog naming rights to the stadium for longer than the directors have been trying to offload their shares. There clearly wasn't any company blue chip or otherwise that agreed with the valuation the club had. The council have used quite a lot of public money to call it the Paisley 2021 Stadium, they've specifically done so because the stadium is situated with the community. Whether it's value for money is for the electorate to decide.

St Mirren have become quite efficient at applying for and getting grants. The club delivers programmes reasonably well, but the club has never taken those initial grants and made a programme self financing beyond the grant period. I don't think that's good value for the community especially when St Mirren have been awarded the grants ahead of local groups who could deliver the programmes and who would have made it self financing. IMO those wee stars the SFA keeps awarding it's clubs as a form of self congratulation rather than achievement is all the praise St Mirren look for. I think there is plenty of scope to raise the game, increase footfall and drive for a self sufficiency that will increase revenue further still. I hope the guys at SMiSA see that and will deliver

If grants are available to St Mirren - glad to hear the club have become quite efficient at applying for, and getting them. Makes you wonder why they can't be more clued-up in other areas. REA seemed to have his finger on the grant pulse too.

Hardly St Mirren or REAs fault if grants are made available to football clubs, or indeed to prospective community-based football club takeovers. Incidentally, I am not claiming you are saying it's their fault either.

Put it this way - if I found out grants were available to gingers to enable them to try some ginger-fighting Clairol hair colouring products - I'd be applying in jig time. Damn right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If grants are available to St Mirren - glad to hear the club have become quite efficient at applying for, and getting them. Makes you wonder why they can't be more clued-up in other areas. REA seemed to have his finger on the grant pulse too.

Hardly St Mirren or REAs fault if grants are made available to football clubs, or indeed to prospective community-based football club takeovers. Incidentally, I am not claiming you are saying it's their fault either.

Put it this way - if I found out grants were available to gingers to enable them to try some ginger-fighting Clairol hair colouring products - I'd be applying in jig time. Damn right.

I always thought that you are a proud ginger.

'mon the gingers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that you are a proud ginger.

'mon the gingers!

Disnae' bother me. It's hair. It's ginger. Never given it much thought in actual fact.

Anyway... fancy a change. Clairol's 'a hint of burnt umber for the ginger' ought to do it. Need to make myself a CiC and claim that grant....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another quite long post….

AnyBuddie that signs up for this club buy-out is simply stupid and naive.

It’s like asking people to mend a tiny leak in the bottom of a dinghy just as a Tsunami is about to hit. Worse – water is already swilling round the necks of every club in Scottish football. The waters of corruption, that is. And the corruption is always ignored by the complicit media, always has been.

The Bigot brothers conspired a few years ago to ensure they didn’t share their home gates and, since then, Scottish Football has been played upon a steadily more uneven, distorted and biased playing field. The wee diddy clubs just don’t stand a chance. I can see no future possibility in clubs other than the Bigots, succeeding with their tainted funding… and the connivance of the media.

As the gap between the Bigots and the diddy clubs grew, everyBuddie bitched about it but our various club owners have always been complicit, knowing what was happening, always ready to snatch crumbs from the Bigot table… all the while scrambling to keep up by throwing unsustainable dosh at fancy players, money that the diddy fan population just could not sustain. No wonder there have been so many financial calamities and bail-outs. shull has always had a valid point. Sigh.

The corruption continues with regard to the disgusting ongoing Sevco farce. The SFA and its officers are appointed by ALL the clubs, yet the infamous five-way agreement to fabricate an entirely new club in the bottom league was allowed to be pushed through – despite the angry misgivings of a very few honest men such as Turnbull Hutton.

Maybe, just maybe, honesty and transparency will someday (soon) afflict the Scottish game. And, out of love for many Buddies, I want our Town and its team to be at the forefront.

So that’s why I HAVE bought in to SMISA’s initiative.

Call me stupid, call me naïve…

Join me.

Go on. It's a heart thing. You know it makes no sense. smile.png

And perhaps that's another reason to back the bid ? If a lot of fans are unhappy about the situation with the SFA or the SPLthen we could look to elect board members who will vote against some of their proposals and maybe by joining together with the likes of Hearts and other fan owned clubs start to make meaningful changes

Div...If someone employed to deliver those programmes, funded by the grants does one task outside of those programmes there is your profit.

The club has been attempting to flog naming rights to the stadium for longer than the directors have been trying to offload their shares. There clearly wasn't any company blue chip or otherwise that agreed with the valuation the club had. The council have used quite a lot of public money to call it the Paisley 2021 Stadium, they've specifically done so because the stadium is situated with the community. Whether it's value for money is for the electorate to decide.

St Mirren have become quite efficient at applying for and getting grants. The club delivers programmes reasonably well, but the club has never taken those initial grants and made a programme self financing beyond the grant period. I don't think that's good value for the community especially when St Mirren have been awarded the grants ahead of local groups who could deliver the programmes and who would have made it self financing. IMO those wee stars the SFA keeps awarding it's clubs as a form of self congratulation rather than achievement is all the praise St Mirren look for. I think there is plenty of scope to raise the game, increase footfall and drive for a self sufficiency that will increase revenue further still. I hope the guys at SMiSA see that and will deliver

By self funding, do you mean the kids paying a fee that goes towards paying for the programmes ? Surely that would defeat the purpose of helping some of the more deprived kids ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to join but after reading that our CEO would likely be appointed onto the board had made me have 2nd thought. It could be said that this is personal, but I just don't see what he would bring to the board. He is not long into his job and I reckon he should work at being a success as a CEO before anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By self funding, do you mean the kids paying a fee that goes towards paying for the programmes ? Surely that would defeat the purpose of helping some of the more deprived kids ?

Not always. There are many different ways to make a programme self financing other than just taking money off kids but where they can pay there would be nothing wrong in taking a fee and allowing those in charge on the night the discretion to waive fees if they think it's appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was going to join but after reading that our CEO would likely be appointed onto the board had made me have 2nd thought. It could be said that this is personal, but I just don't see what he would bring to the board. He is not long into his job and I reckon he should work at being a success as a CEO before anything else.

I've no idea what your gripe is with Tony Fitz and nor do I want to know. I won't mount a defence on his behalf as it would be repeating the obvious thingsyo u already know.

What I would say is that this whole thing is bigger than any individual, even Gordon Scott. You have to try and look at the bigger full picture and get by any personality issues IMHO.

Up to you though bud, you have to make your own mind up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not always. There are many different ways to make a programme self financing other than just taking money off kids but where they can pay there would be nothing wrong in taking a fee and allowing those in charge on the night the discretion to waive fees if they think it's appropriate.

I disagree with that. A lot of these programmes are in some of the most deprived areas where there's very little for kids to do. I think the last figures showed a 75% reduction in street crime in certain areas where these took place. That means less police resources are needed, less vandalism to be cleaned up, possibly a reduction in injuries meaning savings for the NHS. I think that's all pretty much self funding - saving the taxpayer money.

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...