Buy The Buds

[beyond our ken]

It's a poor deal

That is why so few have signed up

The single fan rep will be repeatedly out-maneuvered by the rest of the board

The fans get to pay up on the never-never to let someone else do as they please

You'd need to be daft to sign up to that

Edited June 14, 2016 by beyond our ken

[Stuart Dickson]

It's a poor deal

That is why so few have signed up

The single fan rep will be repeatedly outsourcers by the rest of the board

The fans get to pay up on the never-never to let someone else do as they please

You'd need to be daft to sign up to that

Yep - that's one way to look at it. Of course if the SMiSA membership does feel that it's being paid no more than lip service it would be really easy to make a personal decision to stop your subscription leaving Gordon Scott in charge of a club where he could never sell a 75% shareholding.

[Drew]

It's a poor deal

That is why so few have signed up

The single fan rep will be repeatedly outsourcers by the rest of the board

The fans get to pay up on the never-never to let someone else do as they please

You'd need to be daft to sign up to that

That's certainly one perspective.

The whole point of the initiative is that the club will be fully owned by ordinary punters in due course, however. The sooner that happens, the sooner the signed up supporters will have a more direct influence. We can't have it both ways, unfortunately. How else would the initial lump sum be generated if not by Gordon weighing in in the first instance?

What's the alternative?

Edited June 9, 2016 by Drew

[faraway saint]

That's certainly one perspective.

The whole point of the initiative is that the club will be fully owned by ordinary punters in due course, however. The sooner that happens, the sooner the signed up supporters will have a more direct influence. We can't have it both ways, unfortunately. How else would the initial lump sum be generated if not by Gordon weighing in in the first instance?

What's the alternative?

One of the urban myths is that supporters will have any influence, and I'm afraid is one of the main "selling points".

Anybody who believes they will have anything more than a financial contribution is deranged.

Edited June 9, 2016 by faraway saint

[Callum Gilhooley]

It's a poor deal

That is why so few have signed up

The single fan rep will be repeatedly outsourcers by the rest of the board

The fans get to pay up on the never-never to let someone else do as they please

You'd need to be daft to sign up to that

What is Outsourcers ?

Edited June 9, 2016 by Callum Gilhooley

[Drew]

One of the urban myths is that supporters will have any influence in afraid and one of the main "selling points".

Anybody who believes they will have anything more than a financial contribution is deranged.

If the supporters own the majority shareholding in due course, how would the BoD be selected? As it is now - by the owners. Is this not influence? I assumed that was the entire point of the exercise?

[Stuart Dickson]

Fans have been influencing the current board for years.

Remember Kenny Pointon triumphantly claiming that users of the Official website forum had succeeded in getting Tom Hendrie sacked - the story being that as the board were about to meet that night to discuss club matters George Campbell supposedly stopped to ask Kenny Pointon what the forums view was of Tom Hendrie and he claimed the majority of the users wanted Hendrie out. That seems to have started a trend which led to website users forcing the board to sack John Coughlin amidst fears that fans were going to protest behind the main stand after a home match; where comments about how boring Gus MacPherson's side was had his contract expire without any offer of renewal, where growing web pressure led to the same fate falling on Danny Lennon; and where calls for Tommy Craig and Ian Murray to be sacked were initially met with resistance from the board before finally complying with supporters wishes.

I'd like to think that Gilmours vote against keeping Rangers in the SPL in 2013 was influenced by guys like Drew and me - especially when Gilmour had it in his gift to keep Rangers in the top flight had he voted alongside Michael Johnston.

I don't think anything will be too different under fan ownership. Regardless of membership status the SMiSA committee will probably still be users of these forums and if there's a topic that is generating enough heat I'm sure it will still be brought to the boardroom for attention.

[faraway saint]

Fans have been influencing the current board for years.

Remember Kenny Pointon triumphantly claiming that users of the Official website forum had succeeded in getting Tom Hendrie sacked - the story being that as the board were about to meet that night to discuss club matters George Campbell supposedly stopped to ask Kenny Pointon what the forums view was of Tom Hendrie and he claimed the majority of the users wanted Hendrie out. That seems to have started a trend which led to website users forcing the board to sack John Coughlin amidst fears that fans were going to protest behind the main stand after a home match; where comments about how boring Gus MacPherson's side was had his contract expire without any offer of renewal, where growing web pressure led to the same fate falling on Danny Lennon; and where calls for Tommy Craig and Ian Murray to be sacked were initially met with resistance from the board before finally complying with supporters wishes.

I'd like to think that Gilmours vote against keeping Rangers in the SPL in 2013 was influenced by guys like Drew and me - especially when Gilmour had it in his gift to keep Rangers in the top flight had he voted alongside Michael Johnston.

I don't think anything will be too different under fan ownership. Regardless of membership status the SMiSA committee will probably still be users of these forums and if there's a topic that is generating enough heat I'm sure it will still be brought to the boardroom for attention.

So, therefore, there isn't any real difference if the SMiSA plan is successful or isn't, with any real influence from supporters, as the points you've raised, if they really changed anything that was going to happen anyway, were a done deal.

As I happen to believe the only improvement, if any at all, could be a cash injection.

The only thing that most supporters want is success. I don't see anything in this bid that will give anything better than we have had, or could have if another group came on.

Plenty of clubs succeed without fan ownership.

Edited June 9, 2016 by faraway saint

[Stuart Dickson]

So, therefore, there isn't any real difference if the SMiSA plan is successful or isn't, with any real influence from supporters, as the points you've raised, if they really changed anything that was going to happen anyway, were a done deal.

As I happen to believe the only improvement, if any at all, could be a cash injection.

The only thing that most supporters want is success. I don't see anything in this bid that will give anything better than we have had, or could have if another group came on.

Plenty of clubs succeed without fan ownership.

Well obviously I'd hope that a change in leadership would mean the running of the club would take a significantly different direction. I'd hope that it would mean that a far greater effort would be made to make the club and the stadium a hub for the whole of the local community. I'd hope that the guys running the club would see the potential in sharing and grouping together things like procurement, sponsorship, coaching and fund raising in a way that makes the current board look absolutely myopic, but yeah you're right. There's no reason to believe that much will change in terms of supporter influence beyond being able to elect a representative onto the board.

If you look at existing models at clubs like Swansea City, Exeter City, or even Clyde I'd say the membership experience backs up your point. Fans elect members to the board and beyond paying their dues - unless they want to volunteer or to stand for election themselves - their supporter experience hasn't really changed much either. And I'd agree that it's worth making that perfectly clear to people signing up here. There isn't going to be a vote on who to sign, or even who to appoint as manager or coach when those times arrive. Those who think that might be the case may well be disappointed.

Why I back community ownership models is because I hold a fundamental belief that clubs should be owned by a co-operative of it's members. I believe this ownership model means boards make better long term decisions and aren't so driven by short term outcomes. A classic example would be the situation that developed in 2012 during the Rangers liquidation where I suspect that had Gilmour, McAusland and Campbell not had such an interest in maintaining the short term value of their shareholding, they wouldn't have pushed a case forward that was completely unpalatable to most of their customer base.

People need to make their own minds up whether they back the bid or they don't. For some people £12 per month may seem like a lot of money and they aren't going to get much, if anything, in return. I can understand that viewpoint. At least it's a valid reason - unlike the really stupid one that was presented by one idiot forumster who claimed he wasn't joining cause SMiSA weren't vetting their membership.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Stuart Dickson

[billyg]

219 buds still required with in 10 days ... I don't think we are going to reach the 1000 which is a great shame .

Another 9 signed up within 4 hours of your post ,pretty sure they'll reach their target now !

[shull]

Fans have been influencing the current board for years.

Remember Kenny Pointon triumphantly claiming that users of the Official website forum had succeeded in getting Tom Hendrie sacked - the story being that as the board were about to meet that night to discuss club matters George Campbell supposedly stopped to ask Kenny Pointon what the forums view was of Tom Hendrie and he claimed the majority of the users wanted Hendrie out. That seems to have started a trend which led to website users forcing the board to sack John Coughlin amidst fears that fans were going to protest behind the main stand after a home match; where comments about how boring Gus MacPherson's side was had his contract expire without any offer of renewal, where growing web pressure led to the same fate falling on Danny Lennon; and where calls for Tommy Craig and Ian Murray to be sacked were initially met with resistance from the board before finally complying with supporters wishes.

I'd like to think that Gilmours vote against keeping Rangers in the SPL in 2013 was influenced by guys like Drew and me - especially when Gilmour had it in his gift to keep Rangers in the top flight had he voted alongside Michael Johnston.

I don't think anything will be too different under fan ownership. Regardless of membership status the SMiSA committee will probably still be users of these forums and if there's a topic that is generating enough heat I'm sure it will still be brought to the boardroom for attention.

They never listen to a word I say.

[salmonbuddie]

They never listen to a word I say.

They're not alone in that...

[Drew]

Influencing the decisions a BoD make, and actually influencing who takes a seat in the boardroom are two distinct matters, though.

Anyone who is or has been a member of a trades union or a political party (for example) will be familiar with the process of selecting office bearers. The smaller the organisation, the greater the potential each member has to influence the outcome of any such process.

I would anticipate a process whereby there would be periodic 'elections' and each member would be afforded the opportunity to nominate him or herself or others. Those nominated would then be expected to explain why they should sit on the BoD, and a vote would take place.

Of course there must be a degree of stability and continuity, but it is crucial that each 'member' feels engaged to the extent that s/he wishes to be. Equally important would be the scope to bag anyone who might be deemed not to be acting in the best interest of the club, or to be simply offering enough.

Perhaps I've got the wrong end of the stick, here, but this is the model I would hope to see introduced as and when the majority shareholding sits with the supporters group.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Drew

[shull]

They're not alone in that...

They're not alone in that...

Bassas

[Questions?]

I've put a post about this on reddit's football community "r/soccer". It has half a million subscribers. I believe this is where the slight surge in subscriptions has came from since last night.

If you have a reddit account then up-vote my link so that it increases the visibility of the post and hopefully we could get it on the front page before the Euro's start. (High amount of traffic) Also downvote the dirty hibs fan with the snarky comment!

http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/4ndhbp/st_mirren_fc_is_for_sale_to_fans_for_12month_do/

Edited June 10, 2016 by Questions?

[Stu]

Fans have been influencing the current board for years.

Remember Kenny Pointon triumphantly claiming that users of the Official website forum had succeeded in getting Tom Hendrie sacked - the story being that as the board were about to meet that night to discuss club matters George Campbell supposedly stopped to ask Kenny Pointon what the forums view was of Tom Hendrie and he claimed the majority of the users wanted Hendrie out. That seems to have started a trend which led to website users forcing the board to sack John Coughlin amidst fears that fans were going to protest behind the main stand after a home match; where comments about how boring Gus MacPherson's side was had his contract expire without any offer of renewal, where growing web pressure led to the same fate falling on Danny Lennon; and where calls for Tommy Craig and Ian Murray to be sacked were initially met with resistance from the board before finally complying with supporters wishes.

I'd like to think that Gilmours vote against keeping Rangers in the SPL in 2013 was influenced by guys like Drew and me - especially when Gilmour had it in his gift to keep Rangers in the top flight had he voted alongside Michael Johnston.

I don't think anything will be too different under fan ownership. Regardless of membership status the SMiSA committee will probably still be users of these forums and if there's a topic that is generating enough heat I'm sure it will still be brought to the boardroom for attention.

Can't believe you are still peddling this bullshit

Actually, given some of your fantasy stories on here, I can.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Stu

[Tommy]

Motherwell are around 600 fans short of their target of 2000 for their attempt of fan ownership.

[Isle Of Bute Saint]

Waiting , waiting Sutton, Lappin, Buy The Buds must be the most exciting close season ever !

[shull]

Waiting , waiting Sutton, Lappin, Buy The Buds must be the most exciting close season ever !

It's dire IOBS.

Let's talk Syrians and bicycles.

Lol

[faraway saint]

Waiting , waiting Sutton, Lappin, Buy The Buds must be the most exciting close season ever !

It is for the refugees going to Bute, must be shitting themselves. ????

[Vambo57]

If the supporters own the majority shareholding in due course, how would the BoD be selected? As it is now - by the owners. Is this not influence? I assumed that was the entire point of the exercise?

The BOD would be voted in by the St.Mirren FC Shareholders at their AGM, as it is now.

SMISA would not be the only shareholders, but they obviously would have the biggest block vote and whomever the SMISA members vote for as Directors, would also become directors when the vote is taken at the St.Mirren FC Shareholders AGM.

Edited June 10, 2016 by Vambo57

[Drew]

The BOD would be voted in by the St.Mirren FC Shareholders at their AGM, as it is now.

SMISA would not be the only shareholders, but they obviously would have the biggest block vote and whomever the SMISA members vote for as Directors, would also become directors when the vote is taken at the St.Mirren FC Shareholders AGM.

Aye, so pretty much as I've suggested?

[rabuddies]

So SMISA get at least one seat or perhaps two, GLS gets one for himself and perhaps another two he brings to the club. What do the 900 / 1000 individuals get and how do they influence the decision taking?

Presumably Tony Fitz gets a seat by virtue of being Chief Exec or whatever his job title is.

Edited June 10, 2016 by rabuddies

[faraway saint]

So SMISA get at least one seat or perhaps two, GLS gets one for himself and perhaps another two he brings to the club. What do the 900 / 1000 individuals get and how do they influence the decision taking?

Not a lot and next to nothing.

[Drew]

Not a lot and next to nothing.

The longer term plan (and principal purpose) of the initiative is for SMiSA members to buy out GLS and thereafter have greater influence in terms of the running of the club.

I can't understand what is difficult to grasp about this.